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 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

Rapid Estates Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4137/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. V. Mehrotra & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

Section 14ASection 2

…ted 24/9/2015 in case of CIT(A) Vs. I.P Estate Support Services India Pvt. Ltd passed in ITA NO. 283/2014 and submitted that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court after considering its earlier decision in the case of Maxcopp Investment (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del), categorically held that the Court disapproved of A.O invoking Section 14A Rule 8D (2) of the I.T Rules 1962 without recording his satisfaction and noted that the recording of satisfaction as to why “ the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee was unreasonable and unsatisfactory” which is a mandatory requirement of law. The Ld. Counsel…

Premier Finance & Trading Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 2862/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: S/Shri Sandeep Jhanwar and Hitendra Bhandari –AR.sFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bare-DR
Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204 (P&H) (para 15) , xi. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 28 (Delhi) (para 14) 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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Decent Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2442/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-2442/Del/2011 (Assessment Year-2007-08)

Section 10(38)Section 111Section 14ASection 2Section 88

…confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In respect of Ground No. 2, the Ld. AR submitted that Rule 8D will not be applicable for the present Assessment Year 2007-08 as held in Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT reported at 347 ITR 272. 8. We have perused all the records and heard both the parties. The Ld. DR’s contention that the circular dated February 2016 is not retrospective has to be looked into from the angle of the earlier circulars and the intention of that circular issued by the CBDT. The intention of the circular is clearly to reduce the litigation and maintain consi…

Cni Research Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4395/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Cni Research Ltd. Dcit-5(1), A/12 Gokul Arcade, Mumbai बनाम/ Sahar Road, Vile Parle (E), Vs. Mumbai-400057 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaccc2842H

Section 14A

…de. Our attention was invited to pages 27 and 30 of the paper book by placing reliance upon the decision in the case of Iqbal M. Chagla (67 SOT 123)(Mum), Godrej & Boyce 328 ITR 81(Bom.), Walfort Share & Stock Broker 326 ITR 1 (SC), Maxoop Investment Ltd. 347 ITR 272 (Del.) and Hero Cycles Ltd. 323 ITR 518 (P & H). On the other hand, Shri V. K. Agarwal, ld. DR, defended the disallowance/addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). 3 M/s CNI Research Ltd. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. T…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. Info Eldge India Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/310/2016HC Delhi13 May 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 14Section 14A

…ated 31st July 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 1896/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2007-08. 4. The ITAT has in the impugned order following the decision of this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del) deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) by applying Rule 8D of the Income Tax ITA No.310/2016 Page 2 of 3 Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’). 5. Two…

PAN India Network Infravest P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4170/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth-ARFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204 (P&H) (para 15) , xi. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 28 (Delhi) (para 14) 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…

DCIT 7(1), Mumbai vs. PAN India Network Infravest P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3378/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth-ARFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204 (P&H) (para 15) , xi. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 28 (Delhi) (para 14) 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…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mansarover Investment Ltd., New Delhi

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 78/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2010-11 Ito, Ward 6(2), Room No.185 Vs. Manasarover Investment Ltd. C.R.Bldg. 28, Najafgarh Road New Delhi New Delhi 110 015 & Ay: 2010-11 Manasarover Investment Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 6(2) New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh.K.Sampath, Adv. &
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…that the Ld.CIT(A) has applied the decision of this Bench in the case of M/s Zindal Equipment, Leasing and Consultancy Services Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA 4222/Del/2012 as well the judgement of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Maxopp Investment Ltd.: 347 ITR 272 and deleted the disallowance. 8.1. The Ld.D.R. could not point out any infirmity in this decision of the Ld.CIT(A). In the result these grounds of the Revenue are dismissed. 8.2. Ground no.4 is against the partial deletion of interest disallowance made by the A.O. u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In view of our decision in assessee’s appeal, we set a…

M/S. Mansarover Investment Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6722/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2010-11 Ito, Ward 6(2), Room No.185 Vs. Manasarover Investment Ltd. C.R.Bldg. 28, Najafgarh Road New Delhi New Delhi 110 015 & Ay: 2010-11 Manasarover Investment Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 6(2) New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh.K.Sampath, Adv. &
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…that the Ld.CIT(A) has applied the decision of this Bench in the case of M/s Zindal Equipment, Leasing and Consultancy Services Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA 4222/Del/2012 as well the judgement of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Maxopp Investment Ltd.: 347 ITR 272 and deleted the disallowance. 8.1. The Ld.D.R. could not point out any infirmity in this decision of the Ld.CIT(A). In the result these grounds of the Revenue are dismissed. 8.2. Ground no.4 is against the partial deletion of interest disallowance made by the A.O. u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In view of our decision in assessee’s appeal, we set a…

M/S. Hotz Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (OSD), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 876/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Ramka, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ing Officer is not maintainable. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT v Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. 370 ITR 338(Del.); ii) Joint Investment (P) Ltd. vs. CIT - 233 Taxmann 117 (Del.); & iii) Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT - 347 ITR 272 (Del.); 5. The Learned Senior DR on the other hand tried to justify the first appellate order on the issue. He submitted that it appears from the very 20 assessment order that the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the working of disallowance of expenses under sec. 14A read with Rule 8D made by the assessee. Sizeable overdraft was there t…

M/S Manipal Technologies Limited, Manipal vs. Addl..C.I.T., Udupi

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

ITA 633/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Manipal Technologies Ltd., (Formerly Known As Manipal Press Ltd.) Udayavani Building, Manipal-576104. … Appellant Pan: Aabcm9516H Vs.

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, JCIT(DR)
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 15A

…e exempt income. The learned Assessing Officer shall examine this issue as per the observations of the Tribunal in assessment year 2010-11 and also consider the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd v. CIT reported in 347 ITR 272. With regard to the 2nd issue, there is no disparity on facts. The disallowance made u/s 14A cannot be included in the book profit for the purpose of section 115JB.” Following the decision of this Tribunal for earlier year, we restore this ground of appeal to the file of the AO to examine the claim of the assessee that no expenditure was incurre…

JCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai vs. Dystar India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4088/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…is no exempt income during the year. Accordingly, he worked out the disallowance at Rs. 2,17,167/-. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) too has confirmed the said addition after discussing the decision of Hon’ble High Court decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del). 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel submitted that now in wake of latest High Court decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 378 ITR 33, no disallowance under section 14A can be made if there is no exempt income during the year. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Double…

Dystar India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Jt CIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3046/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…is no exempt income during the year. Accordingly, he worked out the disallowance at Rs. 2,17,167/-. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) too has confirmed the said addition after discussing the decision of Hon’ble High Court decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del). 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel submitted that now in wake of latest High Court decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 378 ITR 33, no disallowance under section 14A can be made if there is no exempt income during the year. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Double…

Dystar India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Jt CIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3045/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…is no exempt income during the year. Accordingly, he worked out the disallowance at Rs. 2,17,167/-. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) too has confirmed the said addition after discussing the decision of Hon’ble High Court decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del). 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel submitted that now in wake of latest High Court decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 378 ITR 33, no disallowance under section 14A can be made if there is no exempt income during the year. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Double…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

ITA 196/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92D

…ion, which is mandated by sub Section (2) to Section 14A of the Act and sub Rule (1) to Rule 8D of the Rules. 14. The view and 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 272/203 Taxman 364/15 taxmann.com 390 has observed:- 'Scope of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A Sub-section (2) of Section 14 A 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 prov…

M/S Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd vs. Addlc.I, .T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 309/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijaypal Raoi.T.A No.309/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, No.15/1, Cubbon Road, Bangalore 560 001 .. Appellant Pan : Aaach3641R V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range - 11, Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Praveen Kumar Prasad, Itp Revenue By : Shri. Sanjay Kumar, Cit -Iii Heard On : 17.03.2016 Pronounced On : 22.04.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. Praveen Kumar Prasad, ITPFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT -III

…ering 0.5% of the average amount of investments, AO made a disallowance of Rs.15,80,810/-. 23. Aggrieved assessee moved in appeal before the CIT (A). Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd v. CIT [347 ITR 272]. As per the assessee investments made by the assessee were strategic in nature and in group companies. However CIT (A) was not impressed. According to him, AO could invoke Rule 8D, even where assessee claimed no expenditure to have been incurred in relation to the exempt income. He upheld the disallowance. 24 Now before us, Ld. AR strongly assa…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Gateway Distriparks Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5746/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Dcit, M/S Gateway Distriparks Circle-3(1), Ltd. B 1/3, Emca House बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Sahid Bhagatsingh Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaacg3425C (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 80I

…Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204 (P&H) (para 15) , xi. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 28 (Delhi) (para 14) 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) I. T. A. No. 749 of 2014. 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 17 M/s Gateway Distriparks Ltd. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and a…

Asahi Glass Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4242/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri C.M. Garg, Jm Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…dition is under challenge before us. 12.3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The assessment year under consideration is 2006-07. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Maxopp Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del), has held that the provisions of Rule 8D are applicable only from the assessment year 2008-09. It has further been held that in the period anterior to that, the disallowance is required to be made on some reasonable basis. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court on the point, we cannot approve the view taken by t…

ACIT Circle 13 (1) vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce

The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 542/DEL/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-542/Del/2008 (Assessment Year-2003-04) Acit Vs M/S Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Competent House, Circle-3(1) F-14, 4Th Floor, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110001 (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A .No.-3491/Del/2008 (Assessment Year-2005-06) M/S Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs Jcit Competent House, F-14, 4Th Floor, Circle 13(1) Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A .No.-3614/Del/2008 (Assessment Year-2005-06) Dcit Vs M/S Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Competent House, Circle-13(1) F-14, 4Th Floor, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. R. R. Singh, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. K. V. S.R Krishna, Ca

Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-542/DEL/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2003-04) ACIT Vs M/s Oriental Bank of Commerce, Competent House, Circle-3(1) F-14, 4th Floor, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110001 (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) I.T.A .No.-3491/DEL/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06) M/s Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs JCIT Competent House, F-14, 4th Floor, Circle 13(1) Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A .No.-3614/DEL/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06)…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3614/DEL/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-542/Del/2008 (Assessment Year-2003-04) Acit Vs M/S Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Competent House, Circle-3(1) F-14, 4Th Floor, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110001 (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A .No.-3491/Del/2008 (Assessment Year-2005-06) M/S Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs Jcit Competent House, F-14, 4Th Floor, Circle 13(1) Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A .No.-3614/Del/2008 (Assessment Year-2005-06) Dcit Vs M/S Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Competent House, Circle-13(1) F-14, 4Th Floor, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. R. R. Singh, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. K. V. S.R Krishna, Ca

Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-542/DEL/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2003-04) ACIT Vs M/s Oriental Bank of Commerce, Competent House, Circle-3(1) F-14, 4th Floor, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110001 (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) I.T.A .No.-3491/DEL/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06) M/s Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs JCIT Competent House, F-14, 4th Floor, Circle 13(1) Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A .No.-3614/DEL/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06)…