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 367,154 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

Ravikant Choudhry, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

ITA 1358/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1358/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010. Shri. Ravikant Choudhry, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of No.51, Elephant Gate Street, Income Tax, Sowcarpet, Company Circle I(1) Chennai 600 079. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aaepr 7102C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT

Section 10(34)Section 14A

…8,544/- only. Assessee also contended that no expenditure for remuneration to any staff was incurred in relation to the exempt income. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Maxop Investment Ltd vs. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 and that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd vs. DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81. However, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not 5. impressed by the above arguments. As per ld. Commissioner of ITA No. 1358/Mds/2014. :- 4 -: Income Tax (Appeals)m assessee had not made any disallowance for expenditure rela…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Asf Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3964/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CA & Sh. AshishFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. MEENA, SR. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ant claimed that no expenses have been incurred during the year for making investment in these companies. The appellant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. and Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 wherein it is held that if investment is made for strategic purposes and not for earning dividend then provisions of Section 14A cannot be applied on such investments. Considering the facts of the case it is held that Section 14A cannot be applied on the investments made in subsidiary and joint venture companies and it should be restricted to th…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Exotique Export, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3233/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Senior DRFor Respondent: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CA

Section 14A

…ional High Court are bound by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, when learned CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to follow the decision/direction of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT – [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi), it cannot be said that he was not right. We, therefore, uphold the order of learned CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 13.12.2016. (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA (SUDHANSHU SRIVAST…

M/S. D.D. Merchant Bankers Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT

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

ITA 4995/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Prem Nath Monga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Senior DR

…e the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. That the Division Bench of the ITAT, after considering the decision of Special Bench as well as Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. – 347 ITR 272 (Del), set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. He also pointed out that the issue is also covered by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Radials International Vs. ACIT – [2014] 367 ITR 1 (Delhi). He stated that the issue may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to be re-examined in the…

Eastern India Educational Institution, Kolkata vs. ITO, (Exemption)-II, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 654/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Dec 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.654/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Eastern India Educational Vs. The Income Tax Officer Institution, (Exemption)-Ii, 10B, Birla Building, 4Th Floor, Middleton Row, 5Th Floor, 9/1, R.N.Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700071 Kolkata-700071 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaate 0448 G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.S.Damle, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 07/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2011-2012, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kolkata, Dated 29.3.2016, U/S.263 Of The I.T.Act. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Ay. 2011-12 Was Completed An 18.03.2014 Determining The Total Income At Rs. 20,35,850/- . On Further Verification Of Records, It Has Been Found That Dividend Income At Rs.3,21,19,822/- Was Earned By The Assessee & Claimed Exempt U/S. 10(34) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. As Per Provisions Of Section 14A Of The I.T.Act, 1961, Expenditure Incurred In Relation To Income Which Do Not Form Part Of Total Income Requires To Be Disallowed In Accordance With The Provisions Of Rule 8D Of The I. T. Rules, 1962. The Computation Of Such Disallowance Was Made In The Assessment Order, Which Was Determined

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.654/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Eastern India Educational Vs. The Income Tax Officer Institution, (Exemption)-II, 10B, Birla Building, 4th Floor, Middleton Row, 5th Floor, 9/1, R.N.Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700071 Kolkata-700071 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAATE 0448 G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri D.S.Damle, AR राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 29…

Eicher Motors Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2268/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain and Ms. Bhavita Kumar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Senior DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)

…investment has been made in the securities earning tax exempt income; that ld. CIT (A) have also erred in considering all the aforesaid contentions rather affirmed the addition made by the AO and relied upon judgment cited as Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT - 347 ITR 272 (Del.), CIT vs. Hero Cycles Ltd. - 320 ITR 518 (P&H) and SIL Investment Ltd. Vs. ACIT – 148 TTJ 213 (Delhi Bench). “12. The ratio of the judgment cited as Maxopp Investments Limited (supra) passed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court is that “under section 14A(2,) it is a condition precedent for Assessing Officer to determine amount of exp…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Eicher Motors Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2228/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain and Ms. Bhavita Kumar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Senior DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)

ACIT 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Maxima Agrotrade P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3515/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-14(2)(1), M/S Maxima Agrotrade 432, 4Th Floor, बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, 1St Floor, Capri Building Vs. M.K. Road, Anant, Kanekar Marg, Mumbai-400020 Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafcm0945G

Section 14Section 14A

…down in CIT vs Corrtech Energy P. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 97 (Guj.)(para-15), CIT vs Hero Cycle Ltd. 323 ITR 518 (P & H)(para-15), Eicher Goodearth Ltd. vs CIT (2015) 378 ITR 28 (Del), Para-14, 9 M/s Maxima Agrotrade Pvt Ltd. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del.)(para- 12) and consistent stand taken by the Tribunal, considering the decisions from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), consequently, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This Order was…

S.B. & T International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 11(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 1054/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Saktijit Deyआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ Ita No.1054/Mum/2015 : िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. S.B.& T International Ltd. Dcit-Circle-11(2)(1) 9, Yusuf Building, Room No.15 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. 1St Floor, A.R. Street, Pydhonie Vs. Mumbai-400 003. Pan:Aaacs 7275 C आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ Ita No.1152/Mum/2015 : िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit-Circle-11(2)(1) Vs. M/S. S.B. & T International Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan ,Mumbai. Mumbai-400 003.. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri N.K. Chand -Cit Assessee By: Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04.10.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 16.11.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद", राजे" के अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- Challenging The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao), Dated 29/12/2014, Passed U/S. 143(3)R.W.S.144C (5)Of The Act In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp),The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.The Ao Has Challenged The Directions Of The Drp.

For Appellant: Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand -CIT

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…d not earned exempt income,that the investment made by the assessee was in the subsidiary companies,that the facts of the case for the year under consideration were similar to the facts for the AY.2011- 12.The DR referred to the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd.(347 ITR 272) and RP Modi (115 ITR 59). 7.We have heard the rival submissions.We find that the Tribunal had adjudicated the issue while deciding the appeal for the AY.2011-12 in the following manner: 4 1054 & 1152/M/15-SB&T Intl. Ltd. “13. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. As is evident, the Ass…

Fereshte Sethna, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 7086/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh Ms. Fereshte Sethna Acit, Circle 11(2) 121, Maker Chambers-Iv Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Nariman Point M.K. Road Mumbai 400021 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aqwps3879H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mrunal ParekhFor Respondent: Shri Ranatir Gupta

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

…these contentions, the learned A.R. of the assessee, inter alia, cited and placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: - (i) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. UOI (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom) (ii) Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del.) (iii) ACIT vs, Iqbal M. Chagala (2014) 34 ITR (Trib) 636 (Mum) (iv) Auchtel Products Ltd. vs. ACIT (2012) 22 taxmann.com 99 (Mum Trib) (v) Justice Sam P. Bharucha vs. Addl. ACIT (2012) 25 taxmann.com 381 (Mum Trib) 4.2 Per contra, the learned D.R. supported the orders of the authorities below on this issue. 4.3.1 We have heard the rival co…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…d that As per section 14A(2), disallowance under that section as per Rule 8D can be made only if the assessing officer records satisfaction/finding as to the incorrectness in the method of disallowance followed by the appellant. [Refer: Maxopp Investment Ltd: 347 ITR 272 (Del.)]. In the absence of any satisfaction recorded in the assessment order, the disallowance as per Rule 8D needs to be deleted. In the present case, as submitted above, the appellant suo moto identified expenses, having relation with earning of exempt dividend income, viz., salary of employees engaged in treasury functions and proportionate PM…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Times Internet Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2986/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri I.P.S. Bindra, CIT- DR

Section 14A

…CIT(A) cannot exercise the power of remand to the AO. 12. Now, turning to the application of Rule 8D by the AO, we find that 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 th…

M/S Times Internet Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2333/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri I.P.S. Bindra, CIT- DR

Section 14A

Druzba Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 6301/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 6301/Del/2013 (Assessment Year-2009-10)

Section 10Section 14A

…to be given. No disallowance can be made if no expenditure is incurred in relation to the exempt income. But in assessee’s case the Assessing Officer has not followed the same. The Ld. AR relied on the following case laws: i) Maxopp Investment Vs. CIT (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 390 (Delhi) ii) CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 115 & 119/2014 dated 25.11.2014 (Delhi) iii) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 328 ITR 81 (Bom) iv) M/s Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA No. 117/2015 dated 25.02.2015 (Delhi) v) UP Electronics Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Lucknow ITAT “A” Bench in ITA…

Vishal Ashok Ramsinghani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 314/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 314/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind

Section 14ASection 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 314/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vishal Ashok Ramsinghani DCIT, Circle 3(1). 903, Raheja Chambers, Mumbai. बनाम/ 213, Nariman Point, Vs. Free Press Journal Marg, Mumbai-400 021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAAPR 5595H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : : Shri Vimal Punmiya अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21/09/2016 Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 07/10/2016 D…

Rajamani Rajkumar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly

ITA 1972/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1972/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

For Respondent: Shri. Supriyo Pal, JCIT

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…In the case of Super Auto Forge (P) Ltd (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Co-ordinate Bench had held that by virtue of judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT 347 ITR 272, Rule 8D could only be considered as prospective and prior to that disallowance of 2% of exempt income could suffice. We are therefore, of the opinion that for impugned assessment year disallowance u/s.14A should be restricted to 2% of exempt dividend income of "12,76,488/-. In other words, disallowance in excess of "25,530/- stands deleted.…

United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore vs. Addl..C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 722/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III (D.R)

Section 14A

…ed for disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. She has simply observed that Rule 8D is not applicable, therefore, addition by the Assessing Officer is deleted. The observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. Vs CIT reported in 347 ITR 272 (Del.) is worth to note, it read as under: “How is Section 14A to be worked for the period prior to the introduction of Rule 8D? 41. Sub-section (2) of section 14A, as we have seen, stipulates that the Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income “in acc…

The Laxmi Salt Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2434/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri N. Acharya Baduri, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Das, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…to the extent of such expenditure, such rejection must be for disclosed cogent reasons and it is only then that the question of determination of such expenditure by the AO would arise. For this proposition he also placed reliance on the decisions reported in 347 ITR 272 (Del), 361 ITR 131(P&H), 372 ITR 694(Del), 376 ITR 390(Del), AND 378 ITR 240 (Del). 5 The Laxmi Salt Co. Ltd. AY 2009-10 10. In COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, CALCUTTA Versus ASHISH JHUNJHUNWALA G.A. No. 2990 of 2013, wherein the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta confirmed the following observations of this Tribunal in ITA N…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Galileo India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 88/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate

Section 14A

…basis & without specifically identifying any expenses out of the remaining 11% expenses which could be identified towards earning of dividend income. The CIT(A) relies upon the mandate of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del.) requiring the AO to record 8 ITA No.88/Del./2014 appropriate satisfaction having regard to the accounts of the assessee before proceeding to make any disallowance u/s 14A. Assessee’s submissions: It is respectfully submitted that there is a serious fallacy in the decision & approach of the AO in proceeding to make a further disallowanc…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Tata Steel Processing & Distribution Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 379/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…indicate cogent reasons for the same and was not entitled to disregard the assessee's claim and straightaway embark upon computing disallowance under Rule 8D. The above principle has also been affirmed in the following cases: a) Maxopp Investments Ltd v CIT [347 ITR 272 (Del)] b) Kolkata Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Ashish Jhunjhunwala ITA No 1809/Kol/2012 In view of above submission, the-AO should have given a categorical finding in the assessment order, rather than mechanically applying the provisions of Rule 8D which is impermissible as per the provisions of section 14A of the Act/ decisions of various c…