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 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

JCIT (OSD) Circle- 16(2), New Delhi vs. Mayar Health Resorts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3548/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 145(3)Section 209Section 35D(2)(c)

…by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 and without considering ratio decidendi as upheld in the cases of CIT Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and Maxopp Investment Vs CIT[2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) on application of provisions of section 14A of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, fid, CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,33,83,324/-on account of undisclosed membership fee by not considering the fact that the assessee company is following mercantile system of accounting? 4. Whether…

Mayar Health Resorts Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 326/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 145(3)Section 209Section 35D(2)(c)

…by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 and without considering ratio decidendi as upheld in the cases of CIT Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and Maxopp Investment Vs CIT[2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) on application of provisions of section 14A of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, fid, CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,33,83,324/-on account of undisclosed membership fee by not considering the fact that the assessee company is following mercantile system of accounting? 4. Whether…

Mayar Health Resorts Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6228/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 145(3)Section 209Section 35D(2)(c)

…by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 and without considering ratio decidendi as upheld in the cases of CIT Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and Maxopp Investment Vs CIT[2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) on application of provisions of section 14A of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, fid, CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,33,83,324/-on account of undisclosed membership fee by not considering the fact that the assessee company is following mercantile system of accounting? 4. Whether…

Mayar Health Resorts Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5109/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 145(3)Section 209Section 35D(2)(c)

…by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 and without considering ratio decidendi as upheld in the cases of CIT Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and Maxopp Investment Vs CIT[2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) on application of provisions of section 14A of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, fid, CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,33,83,324/-on account of undisclosed membership fee by not considering the fact that the assessee company is following mercantile system of accounting? 4. Whether…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2731/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…ollowing decisions: - CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers: 326 ITR 1 (SC) - Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 394 ITR 449 (SC) - Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT: 402 ITR 640 (SC) affirming decision of the Delhi High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT: 347 ITR 272 (Del.) - CIT vs. Hero Cycles: 323 ITR 518 (P&H) - CIT v. Metalman Auto P. Ltd.: 336 ITR 434 (P&H) - CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.: 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) - CIT v. Torrent Power Ltd.: 363 ITR 474 (Guj). As regards old investment, it is respectfully submitted that such investment has been accepted to be made out of interest free funds inasmu…

Tata Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T., Range-2(3), Mumbai

ITA 3676/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2005-06
For Respondent: Shri P.C Chhottary
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 14A

…e had vehemently contended that the theory of appropriation of expenses could not be applied in the facts of the present case. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT: (2012) 347 ITR 272. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the Learned Revenue Counsel, and in our view, the same are devoid of merit as explained hereinafter. 4.9. The appeal before us pertains to Assessment Year 2005-06. In 7 the case of Maxopp Investment Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, while deciding a batch of a…

DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata vs. Itc Limited, Kolkata

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1223/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सट"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 1068 & 1166/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s ITC Limited Vs. ACIT, Range-8, Kolkata (PAN: AAACI 5950 L) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent / !"यथ" Appellant / I.T.A. No. 1222 & 1223/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s ITC Limited (PAN: AAACI 5950 L) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent / !"यथ" Appellant / 14.03.2023 Date o…

DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata vs. Itc Limited, Kolkata

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1222/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सट"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 1068 & 1166/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s ITC Limited Vs. ACIT, Range-8, Kolkata (PAN: AAACI 5950 L) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent / !"यथ" Appellant / I.T.A. No. 1222 & 1223/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s ITC Limited (PAN: AAACI 5950 L) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent / !"यथ" Appellant / 14.03.2023 Date of…

Itc Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Range-8, Kolkata

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1166/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सट"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 1068 & 1166/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s ITC Limited Vs. ACIT, Range-8, Kolkata (PAN: AAACI 5950 L) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent / !"यथ" Appellant / I.T.A. No. 1222 & 1223/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s ITC Limited (PAN: AAACI 5950 L) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent / !"यथ" Appellant / 14.03.2023 Date o…

Itc Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Range-8, Kolkata

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1068/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सट"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 1068 & 1166/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s ITC Limited Vs. ACIT, Range-8, Kolkata (PAN: AAACI 5950 L) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent / !"यथ" Appellant / I.T.A. No. 1222 & 1223/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s ITC Limited (PAN: AAACI 5950 L) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent / !"यथ" Appellant / 14.03.2023 Date o…

Vip Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4135/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: going to Rule 8D on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ldt vs CIT 402 ITR 640.

For Appellant: Shri J P BairagraFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…of Section 14A(2) and (3) read with Rule 8D of the Rules or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing, 5 would become applicable." (Emphasis Supplied) 8. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 wherein it was held as under: "41. Having regard to the language of Section 14A(2) of the Act, read with Rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowance under Section 14A was not correct. It will…

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "गर"श अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant vs. M/s Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [PAN: AABCB2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/o I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Alpha G. Corp. Development Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue being devoid of merit is dismissed

ITA 6049/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. Debesh Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sanjay Kumar &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…According to the Ld. AR, invoking the provisions of section 14A and Rule 8D framed thereunder by the Ld. AO was not in accordance with the settled position of law. He pointed out that the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del) has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 15 SCC 523 wherein it is held that the expression “expenditure incurred” in section 14A means “actual expenditure and not to some imagined expenditure”. Therefore, if no expenditure is incurred in relation to the exempt income, no disallowance can be mad…

ACIT, Circle- 17(1), New Delhi vs. Modi Rubber Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4864/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr. Dr
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

…Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 and without considering ratio decidendi as upheld in the cases of CIT vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd, [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and Maxopp Investment Vs. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) on application of provisions of sectionl4A of the Act? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in allowing relief to the assessee on the basis of its earlier order in the assessee’s own case ignoring the fact that principle of res-judicata is not applicable to Income Tax proceedings as e…

Maharashtra Seamless Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8253/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…ecorded any satisfaction nor there is any finding in respect of correctness of the claim of the assessee that it has incurred NIL expenses for earning exempt income. 10. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Vs. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 [Delhi] had occasion to consider an identical issue and held as under: "First of all, A 0, to ascertain the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of the expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the said Act. Even where the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred in…

Standard Chartered Investments & Loan India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 848/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

…2)(i)/(ii) of the Rules. He further submitted that the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction before making addition/disallowance under Section 14A of the Act and in this regard, he relied upon the following judgments - Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 and Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT: 394 ITR 449 Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon 18. the order passed by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly invoked provisions of rule 8D to make disallowance of INR 9,00,000/- in terms of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules as the Appellant had…

Steel Authority of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 9, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2563/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargsteel Authority Of India Vs. Acit Ltd., Taxation Dept., Range – 9 4Th Floor, Ispat Bhavan, New Delhi Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan No. Aaacs 7062 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M. P. Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amaresh Singh, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.06.2023

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…u/s 14A as per Rule 8D at Rs.330.38 lakhs. He submitted that thereafter Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT Range 10(2) reported in 328 ITR 81 (Bom) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxoop Investments Ltd. vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del) has decided the issue u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D. Assessee thereafter had reworked the disallowance in the light of the aforesaid judgement and had worked out the disallowance of Rs. 6.07 lakhs. He submitted that the aforesaid revised working of disallowance at Rs. 6.07 lakhs is on similar basis that was followed in A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10 and whi…

Ptc India Financial Services Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(1) & (2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5051/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 14A

…f the assessee submitted that • No satisfaction was recorded by the Ld. DCIT under section 14A (2) of the Act to reject the amount suo-moto computed and disallowed by the Appellant under section 14A of the Act. Reliance placed upon: i. Maxopp Investment Ltd (347 ITR 272) Delhi HC [Refer Para 42 on Page 20 of case law compilation binder]. ii. Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. [2012] 25 taxmann.com 371 Delhi HC [Refer Page 24 of case law compilation binder] iii. Godrej and Boyce Mfg. co. ltd. Vs. DCIT [2010] 194 taxman 203 Bombay HC [Refer Page 28 of case law compilation binder] • The Appellant has sufficient sh…

M/S. Ptc India Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4985/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 14A

…f the assessee submitted that • No satisfaction was recorded by the Ld. DCIT under section 14A (2) of the Act to reject the amount suo-moto computed and disallowed by the Appellant under section 14A of the Act. Reliance placed upon: i. Maxopp Investment Ltd (347 ITR 272) Delhi HC [Refer Para 42 on Page 20 of case law compilation binder]. ii. Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. [2012] 25 taxmann.com 371 Delhi HC [Refer Page 24 of case law compilation binder] iii. Godrej and Boyce Mfg. co. ltd. Vs. DCIT [2010] 194 taxman 203 Bombay HC [Refer Page 28 of case law compilation binder] • The Appellant has sufficient sh…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Vcostomer Services India Pvt. Ltd), New Delhi

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

ITA 1618/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…as erred in sustaining the disallowance under Rule 14A read with Rule 8D in absence of any finding that the appellant had incurred the impugned expenditure for the purpose of earning exempt income. Reliance was placed on Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT [(2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del.)] and H T Media Ltd. Vs. PCIT [(2017) 399 ITR 576 (Del.)]. 60. On hearing both the sides and perusing the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the DRP, we find that the Assessing Officer applying Rule 8D(2)(iii) made disallowance at Rs.14,94,534/- and while doing so considered even the mutual funds where the 42 Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1404…