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

Bharat Bijlee Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 383/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Ms.Arju Garodia
Section 14ASection 234C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘J’, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya, AM & Shri Ravish Sood, JM ITA Nos.382 & 383/Mum/2015 : A.Ys 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 M/s.Bharat BIjlee Limited Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax बनाम/ Electric Mansion, 6th Floor Circle 6(1) Appasaheb Marathe Marg Mumbai. Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025. PAN : AAACB2900K. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Ronak Doshi ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Ms.Arju Garodia सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 21.06.2017 Date of Pronou…

Bharat Bijlee Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 382/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Ms.Arju Garodia
Section 14ASection 234C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘J’, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya, AM & Shri Ravish Sood, JM ITA Nos.382 & 383/Mum/2015 : A.Ys 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 M/s.Bharat BIjlee Limited Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax बनाम/ Electric Mansion, 6th Floor Circle 6(1) Appasaheb Marathe Marg Mumbai. Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025. PAN : AAACB2900K. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Ronak Doshi ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Ms.Arju Garodia सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 21.06.2017 Date of Pronou…

A.B. Hotels Ltd. (Radisson Hotel), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4011/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.C.Danday, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24

…and charged to the profit and loss account. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers P. Ltd. 326 ITR 1 and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment P. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported 347 ITR 272 (Del.) were brought to the notice of the CIT(A). 3.1 However, the Ld. CIT(A) was also not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee and upheld the action of the AO by observing as under : “The submissions of the AR are considered and not found to have merit. The arguments advanced by the AR are not maintainable. The decisions cited by…

A.B. Hotels Ltd. (Radisson Hotel), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4010/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.C.Danday, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24

…and charged to the profit and loss account. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers P. Ltd. 326 ITR 1 and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment P. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported 347 ITR 272 (Del.) were brought to the notice of the CIT(A). 3.1 However, the Ld. CIT(A) was also not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee and upheld the action of the AO by observing as under : “The submissions of the AR are considered and not found to have merit. The arguments advanced by the AR are not maintainable. The decisions cited by…

A.B. Hotels Ltd. (Radisson Hotel), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4009/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.C.Danday, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24

…and charged to the profit and loss account. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers P. Ltd. 326 ITR 1 and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment P. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported 347 ITR 272 (Del.) were brought to the notice of the CIT(A). 3.1 However, the Ld. CIT(A) was also not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee and upheld the action of the AO by observing as under : “The submissions of the AR are considered and not found to have merit. The arguments advanced by the AR are not maintainable. The decisions cited by…

M/S. Moonstar Securities Trading & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 621/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. HK Chadhoury, CIT DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 153ASection 250

…'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. 370 ITR 338 has held as under:- “14. The view and the legal ratio expressed above is not being elucidated for the first time. The Delhi High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi), has observed (page 290) : "Scope of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14A Sub-section (2) of section 14A of the said Act provides the manner in which the Assessing Officer is to determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. However, if we examine the provision relation…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bhushan Energy Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed and departmental

ITA 4158/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Bleshri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Bhavnesh Sainiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14Section 14ASection 250

…also submitted that assessee did not make any claim of exemption, therefore no disallowance can be made. The assessee also demonstrated that the substantial expenditure was relatable to its manufacturing / business activities i.e activities distinct vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) substantially accepted the explanation of assessee because the interest expenditure of the assessee was entirely attributable to the funds raised from the financial institutions for setting up the 150 MW power plant in Orissa. The disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D Page 3 of 7 ITA Nos. 3875, 4158/Del/2014 was restricted to Rs. 78,21,733/…

M/S. Bhushan Energy Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed and departmental

ITA 3875/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Bleshri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Bhavnesh Sainiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14Section 14ASection 250

…also submitted that assessee did not make any claim of exemption, therefore no disallowance can be made. The assessee also demonstrated that the substantial expenditure was relatable to its manufacturing / business activities i.e activities distinct vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) substantially accepted the explanation of assessee because the interest expenditure of the assessee was entirely attributable to the funds raised from the financial institutions for setting up the 150 MW power plant in Orissa. The disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D Page 3 of 7 ITA Nos. 3875, 4158/Del/2014 was restricted to Rs. 78,21,733/…

Mansarover Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee for A

ITA 4193/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai & M/S Mansarover Builders (Pvt) Ltd. Dcit/Acit, 48/12, Commercial Centre, Circle-6(1), Malcha Marg, Chanakyapuri Room No. 413, Vs. New Delhi- 110021 C. R. Building, New Delhi Pan : Aaacm6591R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Bhalla, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER And M/s Mansarover Builders (Pvt) Ltd. DCIT/ACIT, 48/12, Commercial Centre, Circle-6(1), Malcha Marg, Chanakyapuri Room no. 413, Vs. New Delhi- 110021 C. R. Building, New Delhi PAN : AAACM6591R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Anil Bhalla, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 27.04.2017 Date of pronouncement : 18.05.2017 O R D E R PER BEENA A. PILLAI, J.M : 1. These are two appeals filed by assessee for assessment year 200…

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mukund Global Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 809/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Acit – 3 (2) (1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Mukund Global 3Rd Finance Ltd., Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm8384N Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM ACIT – 3 (2) (1), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Mukund Global 3rd Finance Ltd., Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACM8384N Appellant) Respondent) .. Revenue by Shri A.K.Kardam Assessee by Shri M.A.Gohel Date of Hearing 09/05/2017 Date of Pronouncement 09/05/2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)- 8, Mumbai for the A.Y.2012-13 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the IT Act. 2. The only grievance of Reve…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Hero Motors Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4316/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2017AY 2010-11

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

Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.4316/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) DCIT (LTU) Vs Hero Motors Ltd. NBCC, Plaza, Pushp Vihar, 603, International Trade Sector-III Tower, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi AAACH8459F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR Respondent by Sh. Sumit Kumar Bansal, FCA Date of Hearing 09.05.2017 Date of Pronouncement 15.05.2017 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the respondent against the order dated 30/5/2014…

M/S. Rites Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2826/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirites Ltd, Dcit, Vs. Rites Bhawan, Circle-15(1), Plot No. 1, New Delhi Sector-29, Gurgaon Pan:Aaacr0830Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Rites Ltd, Circle-15(1), Rites Bhawan, New Delhi Plot No. 1, Sector-29, Gurgaon Pan:Aaacr0830Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. RS Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 14Section 143Section 14A

…any expenses which is relatable to claim of exempt income or any such related investment. (ii) That impugned disallowance is in total regard to provisions of section 14A and principle laid down by Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT 347 ITR 272. 3(i) That addition of Rs. 48.87 crores on protective basis is consequential to addition of Rs. 71.26 crores made by the revenue authorities in assessment year 2008-09. (ii) That in case, addition of Rs. 71.26 crore or any part of the same is sustained in assessment year 2008-09, there is no factual or legal basis for addition of Rs. 44.87 in ass…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Bharti Infratel Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA No. 4941/Del/2012 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 2823/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 14A

…/- and having average investments value earning exempt income to the tune of Rs. 15,96,57,16,500/- for earning the same, is not incorrect considering the facts and circumstances of the case.” 15. Though Ld. AR placed reliance on: 1. Maxopp Investment Limited 347 ITR 272 (Del); 2. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. (2015) 54 taxmann.com 198 (Del.); 3. Continental Carriers 2012-TIOL-467-ITAT-Del; 4. Kalyani Steels – ITA No. 1733/PN/2012; 5. Priya Exhibitors (2012) 27 taxman.com (Del.) since we find that there is sufficient recording of reasons by the AO to the effect that the expenditure offered by the assessee for…

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

In the result, ITA No. 4941/Del/2012 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 4941/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 14A

…/- and having average investments value earning exempt income to the tune of Rs. 15,96,57,16,500/- for earning the same, is not incorrect considering the facts and circumstances of the case.” 15. Though Ld. AR placed reliance on: 1. Maxopp Investment Limited 347 ITR 272 (Del); 2. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. (2015) 54 taxmann.com 198 (Del.); 3. Continental Carriers 2012-TIOL-467-ITAT-Del; 4. Kalyani Steels – ITA No. 1733/PN/2012; 5. Priya Exhibitors (2012) 27 taxman.com (Del.) since we find that there is sufficient recording of reasons by the AO to the effect that the expenditure offered by the assessee for…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bharti Infratel Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA No. 4941/Del/2012 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 4736/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 14A

…/- and having average investments value earning exempt income to the tune of Rs. 15,96,57,16,500/- for earning the same, is not incorrect considering the facts and circumstances of the case.” 15. Though Ld. AR placed reliance on: 1. Maxopp Investment Limited 347 ITR 272 (Del); 2. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. (2015) 54 taxmann.com 198 (Del.); 3. Continental Carriers 2012-TIOL-467-ITAT-Del; 4. Kalyani Steels – ITA No. 1733/PN/2012; 5. Priya Exhibitors (2012) 27 taxman.com (Del.) since we find that there is sufficient recording of reasons by the AO to the effect that the expenditure offered by the assessee for…

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the AO are dismissed

ITA 1929/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: F.V. IraniFor Respondent: R P Meena
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36

…4 (P&H) (para 15) , xi. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 28 (Delhi) (para 14) 5 1929/M/12-Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (+7Appls) xii. Harish Krishnakant Bhatt v. ITA [2005] 278 ITR (AT) 1 (Ahd) (para 10) " xiii. Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) (para 12) 3.1. In view of the factual matrix and following the aforesaid decision from Hon’ble Delhi High Court and in the absence of any contrary decision brought to our notice by either side, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and affirmed the same, thus, this ground of the Revenue is also…

Reliance Infrastructure and Consultants Ltd ( Erstwhile Reliance Infrastructure Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 10(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue also allowed

ITA 6452/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Rel Utility Engineers Ltd, -Range-10(1), (Erstwhile M/S Reliance Room No.455, Aaykar Bhavan, Infrastructure & Consultants फनधभ/ M K Road, Near Churchgate, Ltd, Devidas Lane, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W)- Mumbai-400103 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : M/S Rel Utility Engineers Ltd, Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax- -Range-10(1), (Erstwhile Reliance Room No.455, Aaykar Bhavan, Infrastructure & Consultants फनधभ/ M K Road, Near Churchgate, Ltd, Devidas Lane, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W)-400103. स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaccr7678G (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 115JSection 14A

…called for under rule 8D(2)(iii) or not. The contention of the assessee that no expenditure was incurred to earn dividend income of Rs.29,000/- was not accepted by the AO. As held by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (347 ITR 272) it is not the purpose of the expenditure which is relevant. Once exempt income is earned, it means that some expenditure being incurred in relation to the exempt income which should be disallowed by applying formula laid down in rule 8D(2)(iii). Therefore, action of the AO is correct in applying rule 8D(2)(iii) but the amount of disallowance sho…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Infrastructure and Consultants Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue also allowed

ITA 6266/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Rel Utility Engineers Ltd, -Range-10(1), (Erstwhile M/S Reliance Room No.455, Aaykar Bhavan, Infrastructure & Consultants फनधभ/ M K Road, Near Churchgate, Ltd, Devidas Lane, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W)- Mumbai-400103 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : M/S Rel Utility Engineers Ltd, Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax- -Range-10(1), (Erstwhile Reliance Room No.455, Aaykar Bhavan, Infrastructure & Consultants फनधभ/ M K Road, Near Churchgate, Ltd, Devidas Lane, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W)-400103. स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaccr7678G (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 115JSection 14A

…called for under rule 8D(2)(iii) or not. The contention of the assessee that no expenditure was incurred to earn dividend income of Rs.29,000/- was not accepted by the AO. As held by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (347 ITR 272) it is not the purpose of the expenditure which is relevant. Once exempt income is earned, it means that some expenditure being incurred in relation to the exempt income which should be disallowed by applying formula laid down in rule 8D(2)(iii). Therefore, action of the AO is correct in applying rule 8D(2)(iii) but the amount of disallowance sho…

M/S. Sawhney Brothers, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2864/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 2864/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Sawhney Brothers, Vs Acit, D-924, New Friends Colony, Circle-52(4), New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfs7303M Assessee By : Sh. R. K. Mehra, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Choudhari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.03.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-18, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Choudhari, Sr. DR
Section 112Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

…able for the year under consideration because it was operated for the assessment year 2008-09. The reliance was placed on the 6 Sawhney Brothers judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT reported in (2012) 347 ITR 272. It was also submitted that other additions were also made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) without any basis. 7. In her rival submissions the ld. Senior DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observation made by them in their respective orders. 8. I have considered the submissions of both the part…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S A.K. Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 5616/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 4987/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 4988/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 4989/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 A. K. Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Flat No. N, Sagar Apartment, 6, Tax, Central Circle-20, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabca1591L Ita No. 5616/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs A. K. Services Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-20, Flat No. N, Sagar Apartment, 6, New Delhi Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabca1591L Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. Ashish Chadha & Sh. Ashish Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Ravi Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. Ashish Chadha &For Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 48

…sions made before the authorities below and further submitted that Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 had been applicable from assessment year 2008-09 as has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT reported at 347 ITR 272 wherein the views exporessed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT reported at 328 ITR 81 had been followed. It was further submitted that in the said case, it has been held that the provision of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 had prospective effect and shall apply with effect from 2008-…