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 366,470 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. Hpl Additive Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4245/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Senior DR

Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 14A(2)

…ospective and applies from AY 2008-09. For earlier years, disallowance has to be worked out on “reasonable basis” u/s 14A (1) The aforesaid decision was also considered by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT – 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has concurred with the above view and held that the provisions of Rule 8D has prospective operation only and so, shall apply with effect from the assessment year 2008-09 onwards, therefore, the 3 ITA No.4245/Del./2013 invocation of Rule 8D by the AO is legally untenable. Thus, we find that the ld. CIT (A)…

Kss Ltd (Formerly Known As K Sera Sera Productions Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1061/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11

…the power of making enhancement of income. He placed reliance upon the explanation added to section 144C(8) for this purpose. On merits, he supported the disallowance made by the DRP. He placed reliance on the judgment of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Del), and submitted that the disallowance can be made even if investment is made for strategic purposes. It was further submitted by him that concept of ‘income’ has always included ‘loss’. There can be 12 KSS. ‘loss’, ‘nil’ and positive income and therefore, if no income has been earned, even then provisions of section 14A are attracted. 8.2…

Shri Suresh Verma, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1151/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Shubham Rastogi and Sumit Lokchandani, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153A

…income has been earned the disallowance has to be made u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules. Reliance was placed on the following case laws:- (i) Cheminvest Ltd. Vs ITO (2009) 121 ITD 318 (Del) (SB) (ii) Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 390 (Del) 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. In the present case it is an admitted fact that the assessee had not earned any dividend income during the year under consideration. Now this issue is no longer Res-Integra as held by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Holcim (P) Ltd (supra) and by Punjab and…

Shri Suresh Verma, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1150/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Shubham Rastogi and Sumit Lokchandani, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153A

Mohair Investment and Trading Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4677/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate and Bhavita Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Senior DR

Section 115Section 143Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

…ng substantial question of law was admitted and was adjudicated vide the common order in the aforesaid decision, reported as Maxopp Investment (supra) and in this regard, it can be seen at page 296 of the aforesaid decision of the Delhi High Court reported at 347 ITR 272 though against the assessee. Further we find that the SLP filed against the aforesaid decision of the Delhi High Court in the appellant's own case for the assessment year 2002-03 has also been admitted by the Hon'ble Supreme 24 ITA No4677 /Del./2009 Court in CC No. 17279/2012. The Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court has held that when an issue is…

Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 774/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwala, SrFor Respondent: Shri N.K.Chand (CIT-DR)

Section 144CSection 92C

…unt disallowable u/s 14A. On the other hand, ld. CIT 29 ITA Nos. 774 & 1508/Mum/14 Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd. (DR) has supported the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the disallowance has been made in accordance with the Rule 8D. vs. CIT (347 ITR 272). In reply, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has drawn our attention upon various judgments, which have been rendered subsequent to the judgment of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra), wherein the arguments made by the ld. counsel have been found to be acceptable. 7.6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides, the order of the lower au…

Sh. Pradeep Khanna, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 6643/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble:Asstt. Yrs: 2008-09 Pradeep Khanna, Vs. Acit, W-60, Greater Kailash-1, Circle-23(1), New Delhi. Pan: Aaqpk 0771 J ( Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Mahana Adv. &For Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR

Section 10Section 111ASection 14A

…oth have failed to appreciate that all the investment have been made by the appellants out of the spare funds available with the appellants and there are no presumption of expenditure - reference 5 ITA 6643/Del/13 Pradeep Khanna Vs. ACIT ACIT Vs. MAXXOP L TO 347 ITR 272 (DELHI) 3. The order of the CIT (A) and AO are bad in law and against the facts of the case.” 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. As far as ground no. 1 raised by assessee is concerned we find from bare reading of the assessment order that AO has clearly recorded his satisfaction that the assessee’s s…

Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 7586/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.7586/Mum./2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. …….………. अऩीऱधथी / Sir Phiroze Jeejeebho Towers Dalal Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Appellant Pan – Aaccb6672L V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ..…….………. प्रत्यथी / Range–2(1), Aayakar Bhawan Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Samir Tekriwal ननधधाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri S.E. Dastur A/W Shri Niraj Sheth & Shri Rasesh Shah सुनवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 05.10.2015 Date Of Order – 30.10.2015

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur a/wFor Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal

Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘बी’ म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री राजेंद्र, ऱेखा सदस्य एवुं श्री शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA no.7586/Mum./2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. …….………. अऩीऱधथी / Sir Phiroze Jeejeebho Towers Dalal Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Appellant PAN – AACCB6672L v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ..…….………. प्रत्यथी / Range–2(1), Aayakar Bhawan Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 रधजस्व की ओर से / Rev…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Advaith Motors Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 525/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri Gururaj Acharya, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT

Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…re claimed to have been incurred for earning exempt income. That this condition applies even where the claim is one of no or nil expenditure has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp 7 ITA No.525(B)/15 Investments Ltd Vs COT (2012) 347 ITR 272 in para-30 of its judgment”. 8. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion. that the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition to the proportionate amount of Rs.18,90,931/- applying Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I T Act, 1961. We do not find any reason to interfere. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronoun…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4908/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh, Jm & Sh. O.P.Kant, Am Ita No.4908/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Acit Vs Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., Circle-16(1) Indra Palace, New Delhi H-Block, Connaught Circle New Delhi Aaacc1072F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. J.P.Chandrekar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…. P Ltd Vs CIT 301 ITR 359, CIT Vs. Matalman Auto P Ltd 336 ITR 0434. However, both the parties were ultimately concurred that issue involved in ground No.1 is covered by the judgement of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 (Delhi), wherein it is held that Rule 8D was inapplicable to the assessment year prior to 2008-09 and the AO shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to exempted income on the basis of any reasoned and acceptable method. The relevant part of the judgement is reproduced as under:- Page 5 of 14 ITA No.4908/Del./2011 643 Thus,…

Greaves Cotton Ltd (Formerly Known As Greaves Ltd), Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7356/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shuklaita

For Respondent: Shri N K Chand

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80H

…onus of the assessee to prove the nexus between the investment made and interest free funds and also the expenditures debited in the P&L Account. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Maxbopp Investments, 347 ITR 272 and drew our specific attention to para 24 & 25 of the judgment. 9. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned order as well as material referred to before us. The Ld. CIT(A) has enhanced the disallowance u/s 14A to Rs. 3,25,89,130/- as against the disallowance made by the AO at Rs. 9,98,…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Lalit Kumar Poddar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 920/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainiassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Smt. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…de disallowance of 50% of the interest paid by the assessee which is unjustified. 11.2 I have also considered the case law cited by the assessee particularly the judgement of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Ors vs CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del) and Karnataka High Court in the case of CCI Ltd. vs the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 206 Taxmann 563 as well as judgement of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Wallfort Shares & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (326 ITR 01) on which heavy reliance is placed by the appellant. Assessing Officer has not examined as to whether expenditure inc…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Svp Industries Ltd., Muzaffarnagar

Appeal of the Revenue is disposed off accordingly

ITA 6652/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-6652/Del/2013 (Assessment Year-2008-09)

Section 14ASection 16

…DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-6652/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) DCIT vs SVP Industries Ltd. Central Circle-19 Village & Post Mansoorpur New Delhi Muzaffarnagar AAECS3637C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh Amresh Bedi, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh.Balwant Singh, Adv. Date of Hearing 09.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement 23.09.2015 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 14/10/2013 passed by CIT(A) XII, New Delhi. 2. The ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is…

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/590/2014HC Delhi15 Sept 2015

…$" IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 15. + ITA 589/2014 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II Appellant Through: Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Zoheb Hossain, Advocate. versus MORGAN SECURITIES & CREDITS PVT. LTD Respondent Through: Mr SimranMehta and Mr PrabhatKalia, Advocates. AND + ITA 590/2014 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-II Appellant Through: Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Zoheb Hossain, Advocate. versus MORGAN SECURITIES & CREDITS PVT. LTD. Respondent Through: Mr Parag P. Tripathi, Senior Advocate with Mr Simran Mehta and Mr Prabhat Kalia, Advocate. ITA 589/2014 &…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/589/2014HC Delhi15 Sept 2015

…r can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/04/2026 at 22:26:43 by the decision of this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del). 5. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises in these appeals. 6. The appeals are dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 MK ITA 589/2014 & 590/2014 Page 3 of 3 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the o…

Cheminvest Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA/749/2014HC Delhi02 Sept 2015

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

…passed the impugned order on 4th January 2013 remanding the matter to the file of the AO for reconsideration of the issue afresh. The ITAT referred to the decision of this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del). 13. At the hearing of this case on 6th July 2015, the Court had asked the parties to also address the issue of whether the interest paid on borrowings for the purposes of investment by the Assessee could be treated as business expenditure? 14. Mr. Vohra has placed before the Court a large number of decisions including the decis…

Shriram Capital Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 513/CHNY/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rengaraj, IRS, CIT

Section 14A

…aimed”, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal (Delhi) in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. ITO., [2009] 317 ITR (A.T.) 86. Reference was made to Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT, [2012] 347 ITR 272 to observe that Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was not applicable in the assessment year 2007-08. Judgment of the Bombay High Court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.Vs. DCIT, [2010] 328 ITR 81 was also quoted. As per Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra), the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of expenditure incurred in…

Shriram Capital Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 512/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rengaraj, IRS, CIT

Section 14A

ACIT, Chennai vs. Inautix Technologies India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the assessee appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2625/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2277/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-2009)

For Appellant: Dr. Anitha Sumanth, Advocate

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी च"ला नागे"" "साद, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2277/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-2009) M/s. iNautix Technologies India The Assistant Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd, Vs Income Tax, 10th floor, Tidal Park, Company Circle II(3), No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai Taramani, Chennai 600 113. (PAN No.AAACI 6177K) The Assistant Commissioner of M/s. iNautix Technologies India…

Inautix Technologies India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2277/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2277/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-2009)

For Appellant: Dr. Anitha Sumanth, Advocate

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A