Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

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

…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…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., vs DCIT, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. PAN-AAACM0829Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2010-11] DCIT, vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. PAN-AAACM0829Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, CA R…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., vs DCIT, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. PAN-AAACM0829Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2010-11] DCIT, vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. PAN-AAACM0829Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, CA R…

DCIT, C-11(1), New Delhi vs. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

…disallowance as per Rule 8D needs to be deleted. Reliance in this . regard is placed on the following decisions: - CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers 326 ITR 1(SC) - Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. VS. DCIT: 394 ITR 449(SC) Maxopp Investment Ltd: 347 ITR 272 (Del.)- Affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 402 ITR 640 - CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd.: 401 ITR 445 (SC) - PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd.: [2019] 261 Taxman 179 (Delhi) 32 - H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: 399 ITR 576 (Del) - Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) - PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.) - CIT v. Abhishek Indu…

National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 18, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedia N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

…as upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case CIT Vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 and without considering ratio decidendi as upheld in 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? 9. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld CIT (A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 3,12,972/- on account of additional depreciation claimed u/s 32 (1) (iia) of the Act without considering the fact that the relevant provisions are affected w.e.f. 01.…

ACIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedia N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

…as upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case CIT Vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 and without considering ratio decidendi as upheld in 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? 9. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld CIT (A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 3,12,972/- on account of additional depreciation claimed u/s 32 (1) (iia) of the Act without considering the fact that the relevant provisions are affected w.e.f. 01.…

ACIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi vs. Jaypee Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Jaypee Capital Services Central Circle-29, Vs. Ltd., Fa-45, Shivaji New Delhi. Enclave, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacj0628A Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jaypee Capital Services Acit, Ltd., Fa-45, Shivaji Enclave, Vs. Central Circle-29, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacj0628A New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

…10. More-so, before invoking the provisions contained u/s 14A of the Act, AO has not recorded his satisfaction as required u/s 14A(2) that the working given by the assessee is not correct. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del.), confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that, "it is incumbent upon the AO to record satisfaction as to the working given by the assessee that no expenses 16 ITA.No.5169 & 6046/Del./2019 M/s. Jaypee Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi. have been incurred by it to earn the dividend income". In view of the matter, we are of the considered vi…

Jaypee Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Jaypee Capital Services Central Circle-29, Vs. Ltd., Fa-45, Shivaji New Delhi. Enclave, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacj0628A Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jaypee Capital Services Acit, Ltd., Fa-45, Shivaji Enclave, Vs. Central Circle-29, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacj0628A New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

…10. More-so, before invoking the provisions contained u/s 14A of the Act, AO has not recorded his satisfaction as required u/s 14A(2) that the working given by the assessee is not correct. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del.), confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that, "it is incumbent upon the AO to record satisfaction as to the working given by the assessee that no expenses 16 ITA.No.5169 & 6046/Del./2019 M/s. Jaypee Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi. have been incurred by it to earn the dividend income". In view of the matter, we are of the considered vi…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Metro Institute of Medical Science Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

…holding the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rule of Rs. 1,91,74,875/- without considering ratio decidendi as upheld in cases of C1T vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt 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? 7. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is legally justified in holding that the employee’s contribution to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) which is deemed as the employer’s income u/s 2(24)(x) of the Act and which is subject to deduction u/s-36( 1 )(va)…

DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Genesis Color Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Genesis Color Pvt. Ltd, Circle-10(1), 3A/1, Rao Tula Ram Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcg4825H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…the suo moto disallowances claimed then the issue of disallowances u/s 14A is covered by the binding precedent in case of Chemnivest Ltd Vs. CIT-IV 61 Taxmann.com 118 (Delhi ), CIT Vs. Holcim India P. Ltd 57 Taxmann.com 28 (2015) Delhi, Maxopp Investment Ltd 347 ITR 272 which have been considered in Assessee‟s own case for the Assessment Year 2014-15. There is no substance in the revenue‟s appeal as raised in ground No. 1. 10. As to ground No. 2 it can be observed that the description of expenditure in the form of computer repair and maintenance itself speaks of the nature of expenditure. The purchases were not…

Ratna Commercial Enterprises P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Dcitcirclr-20(1), New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13 Ratna Commercial Enterprises P. Vs Dcit, Ltd., Circle-20(1), 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri T. Kipgen, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : .04.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12Th May, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-36, New Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Ground Of Appeal No.1 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:-

…el for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A of the IT Act r.w.r. 8D. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in 347 ITR 272, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that only the actual expenditure incurred to earn the exempt income has to be disallowed and no disallowance can be made on notional basis irrespective of whether the expenditure has been incurred or not. He submitted that the assessee’s major investment was in Dabur India Lt…