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 367,164 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

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

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

ITA 4987/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

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-…

Punj Lloyd Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5256/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri A.N. Mishraassessment Year: 2006-07 Punj Lloyd Limited Acit 17-18, Vs. Circle 14(1), Nehru Place C.R. Building New Delhi New Delhi Pin: Aaacp0305Q

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. F.R. Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 14A

…R placed reliance upon the order of the CIT(A). 10. Having carefully examined the order of the lower authorities in the rival submissions and case law referred to by the assessee in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, 347 ITR 272, we find that undisputedly it has been repeatedly held that Rule 8D would apply from the assessment year 2007-08. Since the computation of disallowance as per Rule 8D cannot be done upto 2006-07, we find no merit in the direction of the CIT(A). 11. However, where the assessee has received the exempted income, some disallowance are to be made for…

D.C.I.T., Circle-12, Kolkata vs. M/S Vinayak Dealerd Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2671/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…ITA No.2671/Kol/2013-M/s. Vinayak Dealers Pvt. Ltd. A.Y.2009-10 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Hon’ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.2671/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 V/s. M/s. Vinayak Dealers Pvt. Ltd. D.C.I.T., Circle-12, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 5A, Clive Ghat Street, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700001. Aayakar Bhawan, 7th Floor,Kolkata-700069. PAN:AAACV 9573 C .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri M.K.Chanda, JCIT,Sr.DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 25.…

D.C.I.T., Circle-4, Kolkata vs. M/S. Rossell India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2774/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10 Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata V/S. M/S Rossell India Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee 21/1A/3, Darga Road, Square, Kolkata-69 Jindal Towers, Block B, 4Th Floor, Park Circus, Kolkta-700 017 [Pan Noaabcr 3736 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…. M/s Rossell India Ltd. Page 12 Damodar Valley Corporation vs. ACIT (2016) 157 ITD 415 (Kol) ACIT vs. Champion Commercial Co. Ltd. (2013) 152 TTJ 241 (Kol) CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 272 (Del) Maxopp Investments Ltd vs. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del) CIT vs. Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 310(Del) Auchtel Products Ltd. vs. ACIT (2012) 52 SOT 39 (Mum) Without prejudice to above, assuming though not admitting that Rule 8D of the IT Rules was at all applicable in the case of the respondent, the quantum of disallowance made by AO is incorrect owing to following reasons:-…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(4) Cen RG 4, Mumbai vs. Uma Polymers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 3884/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM M/s. Uma Polymers Ltd., Vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), Mumbai 115, Raheja Plaza of Veera Desai Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053 PAN/GIR No. AAACU0748E Appellant) .. Respondent) DCIT CC4(4), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Uma Polymers Ltd., 115, Raheja Plaza of Veera Desai Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053 PAN/GIR No. AAACU0748E Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajendra Jain Revenue by Ms. Pooja Swaroop Date of Hearing 09/02/2017 Date of Pronouncement 03/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the cros…

Uma Polymers Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 3329/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Priya Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD), Cir 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3231/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Priya Ltd. Dcit(Osd), Circle-2(3), 209-210, Kimatraj Building बनाम/ R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, 02 Floor, 77/79 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacp2210Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit(Osd), Priya Ltd. 209-210, Kimatraj Building Circle-2(3), बनाम/ 02 Floor, 77/79 R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Vs. M.K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacp2210Q

Section 10(33)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260A

…d or receivable during the relevant Assessment Year. While coming to this decision, the Hon'ble High Court followed the decision of CIT vs Holcim India P. Ltd. (2015) 57 taxman.com 28(Del.)(para-19) and another decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del.). The relevant portion from the order of Cheminvest Ltd. (supra) is reproduced hereunder for ready reference and analysis:- “1. This is an appeal filed by the Assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) against the order dated 4th January, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.87/DEL/2008 f…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 4 vs. Holtech Consulting Pvt. Ltd

ITA/163/2017HC Delhi20 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 14ASection 260ASection 36(1)

…laim to the extent of 60% on purchase of computer peripherals and the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, are covered by the previous judgments of this Court [CIT Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited [2013] 358 ITR 47 and Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs.ACIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Delhi)]. In these circumstances, no question of law arises on that account. 3. The third question urged is with respect to the addition of Rs.98,25,697/- made out over Rs.3,00,000,00/- paid to the two Directors as commission by the assessee. Applying provisions of Section 36(1) (ii) of the Act, Assessment Officer (for short ‘AO’) ruled that the…

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

In the result ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 724/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. A K Saroha CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Jain Adv

Section 14Section 143Section 148Section 14A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.: 724/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2005-06 ACIT MMTC Limited Circle 5(1) Core 1 Vs. New Delhi Scope Complex 7, institutional India Lodhi Road New Delhi PAN:- AAACM1433E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. A K Saroha CIT DR Respondent by: Shri Rohit Jain Adv Ms Deepashreerao CA Date of Hearing 06/02/2017 Date of pronouncement 13/02/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 01. This appeal is preferred by revenue against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Inco…

Allahabad Bank, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata.

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 306/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member ITA No.306 & 649/Kol/2013 Assessment Years:2009-10 Allahabad Bank बनाम DCIT, Circle-6, 2, N.S. Road, Aayakar Bhawan, P7, / V/s. Kokata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 DCIT, Circle-6, M/s Allahabad Bank बनाम Room No. 17, 6th Floor, 2, N.S. Road, / V/s. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-01 Chowringhe Square, Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri B.K.Ghosh, FCA आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Shri Anand Rajeshwar Baiwar, CIT-DR राज"व क" ओर से/By R…

DCIT CC 6(1), Mumbai vs. Vvf Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3137/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. 3137/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Respondent: Smt.Indra G Anand

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…uch investments are made in group concerns for the purpose of maintaining controlling interest and not for the purpose of earning dividend which is only incidental In this connection, it would be pertinent to refer to the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court did not find merit in the submission made on behalf of the assessee that no expenditure ought to be disallowed u/s.14A in a case where the shares are acquired for the purpose of acquiring and retaining control of the operating company and not for earning the tax free (dividend) income which is merely incident…

DCIT (OSD) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Nrc Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4125/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit(Osd)-2(3), Nrc Ltd. R. No.577, State Bank Of India, Central बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Office, Accounts & Vs. M.K. Road, Compliance Dept. 14Th Floor, Mumbai-400020 Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacn1616J

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 3(1)(o)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘बी’,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"नी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT(OSD)-2(3), NRC Ltd. R. No.577, State Bank of India, Central बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Office, Accounts & Vs. M.K. Road, Compliance Dept. 14th Floor, Mumbai-400020 Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No.AAACN1616J राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Suman Kumar-DR "नधा"रती क"…

Addl CIT RG 1(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, then the cross objections of the assessee will become in-fructuous

ITA 114/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years: 2008-09

Section 143(2)Section 14A

…Pvt. Ltd. 318(Del.)(SB), which has been reversed by Hon'ble High Court in (2015) 61 taxman.com 118 (Del.) by following CIT vs Holcim India P. Ltd. (2015) 57 taxman.com 28 (Del.)(Para- 19) and distinguished the decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del.). The Hon'ble High Court held that section 14A of the Act will not apply where no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. The assessee has made strategic investment in the group companies and no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the relevant assessment year. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in C…

Addl CIT RG 1(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, then the cross objections of the assessee will become in-fructuous

ITA 113/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years: 2008-09

Section 143(2)Section 14A

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 615/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Jain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 92D

…mpt income and that the onus was on the revenue to bring on record, the nexus between the expenses and the exempt income. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Walfort Share & Stock Brokers 326 ITR 1 (SC) " Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del.) " Minda Investments Ltd. Vs DCIT 138 TTJ 240 (Del. Trib.) " Bunge Agribusiness India P. Ltd. Vs DCIT 132 ITD 549 (Del. Trib.) " Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs DCIT 92 ITD 119 (Del. Trib.) 32. It was further submitted that the artificial/ad-hoc disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is not permissible without any cogent basis and material on record. The rel…

Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Jain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 92D

Brics Gilt Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1157/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.1157/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Brics Gilt Finance Private बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax 1(2) Vs. 4Th Floor, Sadhna House, Room No.537, 570 P.B.Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Behind Mahindra Towers, New Marine Lines, Worli, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400018 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj8885B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. Doshi &For Respondent: Shri M. Rajan

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…as placed reliance on the law settled mentioned below:- Rule 8D of the Rules is not automatic: 1. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (328 ITR 81)(Bom) 2. CIT Vs. I.P. Support Services India (P.) Ltd.(378 ITR 240)(Del. HC) 3. Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (203 Taxmann 364)(Del HC) 4. CIT Vs. REI Agro Ltd. (ITAT No.161 of 2013)(Cal. HC) 5. Graviss Hospitality Ltd. Vs. DCIT (67 SOT 184)(Mum.Trib) 6. Auchtel Products Ltd. Vs. ACIT (52 SOT 39) (Mum. Trib) 7. DCIT Vs. Jindal Photo Limited and vice versa (ITA No.814 (Del) 2011 and CO 91 (Del) 2011) 8. Allahabad Bank Vs. ACIT (ITA No.1199/Kol/2012)(Kol.Trib). A.Y. 20…

Surendra Kumar Joshi, Kolkata vs. The ACIT, Cir-40, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 869/KOL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] I.T.A No.869/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Surendra Kumar Joshi -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-40, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acppj 2620 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri A.K.Tibrewal, Fca & Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 28.12.2016. Order

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA &For Respondent: None

Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…the formula set out in Rule 8D. Therefore by applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble High Court and as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P)Ltd 326 ITR 1 (SC) and Maxopp Invest Ltd vs CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del) Wherein it has been held that for attracting the provision of section 14A there should be actual expenditure in relation to or pertaining to exempt income. The corollary to this is that if no expenditure is incurred in relation to the exempt income, no disallowance can be made under section 14A of the Act. In this case the AO failed to poin…

M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of

ITA 6795/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anupama Anand, CIT/DR

Section 14A

…Officer to apply the method prescribed by rule 8D without determining in the first instance the correctness of the claim of the assessee, having regard to the accounts of the assessee. 5.2.4 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 15 Taxmann.com 390 (Delhi) held that while rejecting the claim of the assessee with regard to the expenditure or no expenditure, as the case may be, in relation to exempt income, the Assessing Officer would have to indicate cogent reasons for the same. 5.2.5 From the particulars furnished it is seen that as against the above investments of Rs. 759.04 crore…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Rajan Berry, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 2012/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 2012/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Sh. Rajan Berry, Tax, Circle-27(1), B-67, Naraina Indl. Area, Phase-2, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipb0802B Assessee By : Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 02.01.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxiv, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 14A

…ted to be restricted to Rs. 1,62,500/- only which can 11 Rajan Berry reasonably be attributable as expenditure incurred for the purposes of earning exempt income.” 15. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del.) " CIT Vs Hero Cycles Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 518 (P & H) " ACIT Vs SIL Investment Ltd. (2012) 54 SOT 54 (Del.) " Justice Sam P Barucha Vs ACIT in ITA No. 3889/Mum/2011 dated 25.07.2012 " ACIT Vs Eicher Ltd. (2006) 101 TTJ 369 (Del.) 16. Now the department is in appeal. The ld. DR strongly supported the order of the AO and reiterated the observ…