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.

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 272)

Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8, 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 303/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…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Tata Ryerson 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 1124/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

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…

M/S Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2487/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. Vartik RFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Saroha, CIT(DR)

Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…(para 9) CIT vs. UTI Bank Ltd. [2014] 2 ITR-OL 366 (Guj) (para 10) Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom)(para 11) ITO v. Daga Capital Management P. Ltd. [2009] 312 ITR (AT)1 (Mum) [SB] (para 5) Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Del.)(Para 6)” 68 (viii) CIT vs. Gujarat Foils Ltd., 377 ITR 324 (Guj.) The relevant part of this judgement is reproduced below from page 334 of the Report: “Now, so far as Tax Appeal No. 963 of 2008 for the assessment year 2002-03 and Tax Appeal No. 964 of 2008 for the assessment year 2003-04 with respect to the disallowance of interest expe…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sil Investments Ltd., Rajasthan

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

ITA 6046/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…disallowance made by the assessee and made disallowance directly invoking the Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, which is not allowed in law as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 347 ITR 272. Further, the learned Authorised Representative objected to the satisfaction recorded by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) on the ground of having coterminous power with Assessing Officer. According to the learned Authorised Representative, recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer is sine qua none for invoking Rule 8D of…

Sil Investments Ltd., Rajasthan vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5656/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…disallowance made by the assessee and made disallowance directly invoking the Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, which is not allowed in law as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 347 ITR 272. Further, the learned Authorised Representative objected to the satisfaction recorded by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) on the ground of having coterminous power with Assessing Officer. According to the learned Authorised Representative, recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer is sine qua none for invoking Rule 8D of…

Raniganj Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Raniganj vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Asansol

In the result, ITA No.1983/Kol/2014 is partly allowed while ITA

ITA 1983/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A Nos.1983 & 1984/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Raniganj Co-Operative Bank Ltd. -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Circle-2 & Jcit Raniganj Range-2, Asansol (Pan:Aaffr 3315 J)) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri U.Dasgupta, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri U.Dasgupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT.Sr.DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 6

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM ] I.T.A Nos.1983 & 1984/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Raniganj Co-operative Bank Ltd. -vs.- D.C.I.T., Circle-2 & JCIT Raniganj Range-2, Asansol (PAN:AAFFR 3315 J)) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri U.Dasgupta, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT.Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 12.08.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2016. ORDER These are appeals by the Assessee against two different orders both dated 27.8.2014 of CIT(A), Asansol, relating to AY 2008-09 & 2009-10…

ITO 10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jpa Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4640/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12 Income Tax Officer-10(2)(1), M/S Jpa Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Room No.408, 4Th Floor, 102, Man Gouse, S.V. Road, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Vile Parle (West), Vs. M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400056 Mumbai-400020 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aabcj7151K

Section 14A

…ng Officer neither recorded the satisfaction nor considered the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee in its computation of income with regard to earning exempt income u/s 14A of the Act. The ratio laid down in Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Ors. Vs CIT (2011) 347 ITR 272 (Del.) supports my view. Further the ratio laid down in following cases can be relied upon:- • CIT v. Hero Management Service Ltd. [2014J 360 ITR 68 (Del.)(HC) • Kodak India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT[2013] 155 TTJ 697 (Mum.)(Trib.) • JK Investors (Bombay) Limited (Mum.) (Trib.) (www.itatonline.org) • Auchtel Products Limited v. ACIT[2012J 52 SOT 39 (Mum…

Snk Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7437/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Pawan Singhita No.7437/Mum/2013 For Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Snk Investment Pvt. Ltd. 157, Ito 3(3)(3), Room No. 672, 4Th Floor, Maker Chambers Iii, Nariman Vs. Point, Mumbai-400021. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaecs8123R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh (AR)For Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.7437/Mum/2013 for Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s SNK Investment Pvt. Ltd. 157, ITO 3(3)(3), Room No. 672, 4th Floor, Maker Chambers III, Nariman Vs. Point, Mumbai-400021. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAECS8123R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh (AR) Revenue by : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi (DR) Date of hearing : 02.06.2016 Date of Order : 26.08.2016 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. The present appeal filed by the a…

Netmagic Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5160/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5160/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बनधम/ Netmagic Solutions Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Bldg. No.22, Nirlon Complex, Tax –Circle 9(2), Vs. Western Express Highway, Mumbai. Goregaon, Mumbai-400063

Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…3 5160/Mum/2013 vehemently submitted that the case of the assessee is fully covered by the various decisions as under : a) CIT V/s Taikisha Engineering (370 ITR 338) (Del); b) CIT V/s Joint Investments (372 ITR 694) (Del); c) Maxopp Investments Ltd V/s CIT (347 ITR 272); d) Kalyani Steels Ltd V/s Addl.CIT (ITA No.1733/PN/2012); e) 3DPM slftware Solutions Ltd V/s ITO (ITA No.5736/Mum/2012) The ld. Counsel submitted that the additions as made by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) was totally wrong as the mandatory requirement of recording satisfaction has not been complied with as mandated by provisions of se…

Abott India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 3472/Mum/2013 and ITA No

ITA 832/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Morya Pratap

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…e.The assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Limited (2015) 370 ITR 0338(Del. HC) wherein the Hon’ble Court duly considered the decision in the case of Maxoop Investment Limited v. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272(Del.HC). 27. The ld. D.R. submitted that the power of CIT(A) is co-terminus with the power of A.O. He has recorded the satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee has not come out with the complete ITA 3482/Mum/2013 & 39 ITA 832/Mum/2013 details and as such the issue can be set aside to the file of the AO for…

Abbott India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 3472/Mum/2013 and ITA No

ITA 3472/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Morya Pratap

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…e.The assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Limited (2015) 370 ITR 0338(Del. HC) wherein the Hon’ble Court duly considered the decision in the case of Maxoop Investment Limited v. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272(Del.HC). 27. The ld. D.R. submitted that the power of CIT(A) is co-terminus with the power of A.O. He has recorded the satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee has not come out with the complete ITA 3482/Mum/2013 & 39 ITA 832/Mum/2013 details and as such the issue can be set aside to the file of the AO for…

Reliance Natural Resources Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6843/MUM/2012[208-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodthe Dcit -7(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... Appellant Vs. M/S. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan:Aabcr 7656P .... Respondent [ M/S. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan:Aabcr 7656P ... Appellant Vs. The Addl.Cit -7(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Sanghavi/ Deepak Jain Date Of Hearing : 17/8/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Order Per G.S.Pannu,A.M:

For Appellant: S/Shri Jitendra Sanghavi/ Deepak JainFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

…the controversy before us is not to be governed by the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (supra). In fact, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court itself, while distinguishing its earlier judgment in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Ors. vs. CIT, 347 ITR 272(Del) noted such a distinction by observing that Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra) was a case where the dividend income was earned, whereas the case before it i.e. M/s. Cheminvest Ltd. (supra) was a case where no exempt income at all was earned during the year. Therefore, even going by the parity of reasoning initiated the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in…

Addl CIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6711/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodthe Dcit -7(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... Appellant Vs. M/S. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan:Aabcr 7656P .... Respondent [ M/S. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan:Aabcr 7656P ... Appellant Vs. The Addl.Cit -7(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Sanghavi/ Deepak Jain Date Of Hearing : 17/8/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Order Per G.S.Pannu,A.M:

For Appellant: S/Shri Jitendra Sanghavi/ Deepak JainFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

…the controversy before us is not to be governed by the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (supra). In fact, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court itself, while distinguishing its earlier judgment in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Ors. vs. CIT, 347 ITR 272(Del) noted such a distinction by observing that Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra) was a case where the dividend income was earned, whereas the case before it i.e. M/s. Cheminvest Ltd. (supra) was a case where no exempt income at all was earned during the year. Therefore, even going by the parity of reasoning initiated the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in…

Om Air Freight Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4306/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40A

…see?” 2.2. The said question was decided by the Hon’ble Court in favour of the assessee. Reliance had been placed on CIT vs Holcim India P. Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 28 [Del.] and distinguished the earlier decision of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Del.) by holding as under:- 19. “In light of the clear exposition of the law in Holcim India P. Ltd.’s case (supra) and in view of the admitted factual position in this case that the assessee has made strategic investment in shares of Max India Ltd.; that no exempted income was earned by the Assessee in the relevant AY and since the genuineness…

M/S. Holtec Consulting Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 276/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. V. Mehrotra & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Saroha, CIT DR

Section 14Section 143Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36

…4 A of the act in respect of earning of the exempt income. He submitted that rule 8D stands applicable from assessment year 2008-09. He relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs. ACIT reported in 15 Taxmann.com 390. 5.2 It is undisputed facts that Rule 8D is not retrospective and therefore is applicable from assessment year 2008-09. We accordingly set aside this issue to the Ld. AO for calculating the disallowance under section 14 A of the act by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Maxopp Investmen…

Ms. Jyoti Kapur, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 369/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Smt. Diva Singh & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Akash Chug, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 147Section 14ASection 154

…t made by appellant herself. Therefore, the disallowance is unwarranted. In support, reliance is placed on the following judicial precedents : (i). M/s. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. vs. CIT, 54 taxmann.com 109(Delhi). (ii). Maxopp Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, 15 Taxmann.com 390 (Delhi). (iii). Joint Investments (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 59 Taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) (iv). Kalyani Steel Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1733/PN/2012-ITAT Pune) 4. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the ld. Assessing Officer was satisfied as to the disallowance u/s. 14A and has recorded satisf…

Runwal Developement P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 4824/Mum/2014 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4824/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80G

…he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank, reported in [2014] 49 taxmann.com 335; Secondly, he submitted that now in the wake of Delhi High Court decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT, reported in [2012] 347 ITR 272, no disallowance can be made if there is no exempt income and here in this case if the exempt income is Rs. 3,42,000/- and that to be from the partnership firm, then disallowance cannot be made beyond this income. 16. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that, the disallowance has to be made strict…

M/S. Dell International Services India (P) Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5522/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5522/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S Dell International Services Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Tax, Circle-14(1), Room No. 415, Perot Systems Tsi (India) Pvt. Central Revenue Building, Ltd.), Plot No. 3, Sector-125, New Delhi Noida-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach1925Q Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. & Sh. S. S. Tomar, Adv. & Sh. G. Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. N. C. Swain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. & Sh. S. SFor Respondent: Sh. N. C. Swain, CIT DR

Section 10(34)Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Smt. Beena Pillai, JM ITA No. 5522/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/s Dell International Services Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income India Pvt. Ltd., (formerly known as Tax, Circle-14(1), Room No. 415, Perot Systems TSI (India) Pvt. Central Revenue Building, Ltd.), Plot No. 3, Sector-125, New Delhi Noida-201301 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACH1925Q Assessee by : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. & Sh. S. S. Tomar, Adv. & Sh. G. Gupta, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. N. C. Swain, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 02.08.2016 Date of Prono…

M/S S.R. Batliboi & Assocuates LLP, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T.-Cir-54, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 36/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Debobrata Ghosh, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 43B

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘A’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/s. S.R.Batliboi & Associates LLP -versus- D.C.I.T., Circle-54, Kolkata Kolkata (PAN:ACHFS 9118 A) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant: Shri Debobrata Ghosh, FCA For the Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 15.07..2016. Date of Pronouncement :03.08.2016. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 12.11.2013 of CIT(A) XXXVI, Kolkata relating to AY 2008-09. 2. Ground No.1 raised by the As…

Haldia Petrochemicals Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 12(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2114/KOL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 115JSection 32

…any expenditure in relation to dividend income. Hence Provision of section 14A do not apply at all. Assessee has relied on citation of the following cases: 1.CIT vs. Hero Cycles Ltd [ 323 ITR 518]- P&H High Court 2. Maxopp Investment Limited vs. CIT [(2012)347 ITR 272 (Delhi High Court)] 3. CIT vs. Torrent Power Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 474 (Gujarat High Court) It was held that Rule 8D was not applicable in the AY 2005-06 to 2007- 08.Rule 8D came into existence from 24.03.2008 and hence it was not applicable for the assessment year under consideration. In this support Ld.AR has relied on the judgement of Bombay H…

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT