Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi vs. Jt. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

…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)…

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

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…out this mandatory exercise not conducted by the AO, no disallowance can be imputed u/s A of the act by Assessing officer on its own. Our view is also supported by the decision of Honourable Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. V. CIT [2011] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) has held that “29. 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 provision carefully, we would find that the Assessing Officer is required to…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…out this mandatory exercise not conducted by the AO, no disallowance can be imputed u/s A of the act by Assessing officer on its own. Our view is also supported by the decision of Honourable Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. V. CIT [2011] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) has held that “29. 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 provision carefully, we would find that the Assessing Officer is required to…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. C.B. Richard Ellis South Asia Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…parties and carefully gone through the material placed on the record. We find that CIT(A) has directed the AO to compute the disallowance in accordance in the manner held in para 42 of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. – 347 ITR 272 (Del). The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under :- “42. Thus, the fact that we have held that sub-sections (2) & (3) of section 14A and Rule 8D would operate prospectively (and, not retrospectively) does not mean that the assessing officer is not to 14 ITA No.709/Del./2012 ITA No.775/Del./2013 satisfy himself with the correctness of…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cb Richard Ellis South Asia Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…parties and carefully gone through the material placed on the record. We find that CIT(A) has directed the AO to compute the disallowance in accordance in the manner held in para 42 of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. – 347 ITR 272 (Del). The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under :- “42. Thus, the fact that we have held that sub-sections (2) & (3) of section 14A and Rule 8D would operate prospectively (and, not retrospectively) does not mean that the assessing officer is not to 14 ITA No.709/Del./2012 ITA No.775/Del./2013 satisfy himself with the correctness of…