Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2007-08] 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 Appellant By Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv., Sh.Rohit Jain, Adv. & Ms. Soumya Jain, Ca Respondent By Ms. Sarita Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2022

…urther contended that interest free own fund available with the assessee for exceeded the investment made in shares/securities on which exempt dividend income was received. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. – 347 ITR 272 (supra) relied upon by the Learned AR has been pleased to hold that before making disallowance under sec. 14A of the Act, it is mandatory on the part of the Assessing Officer to record his satisfaction that explanation made by the assessee on the applicability of the provisions under sec. 14A of the Act. We thus in the interest of justice set asi…

Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-21, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2014-15 Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Vs Addl. Cit, Ltd., Range-21, 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 N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23Rd January, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal No. 1 & 2 Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. That Both The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Ao Erred In Law & In Facts In Disallowance Of Rs.1,08,69,547/- U/S 14A In A Mechanical Way Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Himself Has Disallowed Rs 2.41 Lakhs & That There Cannot Be Any Further Disallowance U/S 14A Without A Cogent Reason. 2. That Both The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Ao Erred In Law & In Facts In Appreciating That Strategic Investments In Dabur India Limited As The Promoter Shareholder, Would Not Form Part Of Disallowance U/S 14A.”

…e made on notional basis irrespective whether expenditure has been incurred or not. For the above proposition, the ld. Counsel for the assessee referred 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 in the instant case, the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any item of expenditure incurred by the assessee to earn the dividend received from Dabur India Ltd. and Ayurvet Ltd. He submitted that there is no change in the investment made by the assessee in the immediately preceding year and the year under consideration. Ther…

Zuari Investements Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 27(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhary(Through Video Conferencing) Zuari Investments Ltd., Vs. Ito Plot No.2, Zamrudpur Ward – 27(4), Community Centre, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extension, New Delhi-110 048

…ly applied Rule 8D without recording the satisfaction as to why the working given by the assessee for working out the disallowance was not acceptable. He relying on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) submitted that Hon’ble High Court has held that before invoking the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, AO must record the satisfaction with respect to the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure and only when the AO is not satisfied with the working of the claim of the assessee, the AO gets jurisdiction to de…

JCIT(OSD), Circle-16(2), New Delhi vs. Media Transasia India Private Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

…he 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 ? 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground/(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” (B) At the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee, but through a written communication dated 01.10.2021 the Lear…

Addl. CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi vs. Rites Ltd., New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh, Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 Addl. Cit, Vs. Rites Ltd., Special Range-7, Scope Building, New Delhi. Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi. Pan : Aaacr0830Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23Rd August, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-38, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. Ground Of Appeal No.1 By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Deleting Disallowance Of Rs. 1,17,21,750/- U/S 14A Read With Rule 8D Ignoring The Mandatory Provision Of Rule 8D.”

…f the assessee by relying upon the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in cases of Pradeep Khanna vs. ACIT in ITA 953/2015 order dated 11.08.2016, CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering Private Limited 370 ITR 338 (Del.) and Maxopp Investment (P) Ltd. s. CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del.). 12. Identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No.2826/Del/2014 & ITA No.3026/Del/2014 order dated 24.04.2017. In the appeal at hand, it is admitted fact that substantial portion of the investments are made in the earlier years. 13. In these circumstance…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Uflex Ltd., New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

…o the other companies from whom the dividend has been received and that too, to the extent of actual expenditure so incurred. For this purpose, the appellant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT in 347 ITR 272. 4.2 However, the ld. Assessing Officer denying the assessee’s claim having regard to the nature of expenses claimed and the exempt income earned, proceeded to apply Rule 8D and worked out the disallowance at Rs.1,95,33,819/-. The ld. CIT (Appeals) gave relief to the extent of Rs.1,66,07,634/- on the ground that in so far as the interest expendit…

Uflex Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

…o the other companies from whom the dividend has been received and that too, to the extent of actual expenditure so incurred. For this purpose, the appellant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT in 347 ITR 272. 4.2 However, the ld. Assessing Officer denying the assessee’s claim having regard to the nature of expenses claimed and the exempt income earned, proceeded to apply Rule 8D and worked out the disallowance at Rs.1,95,33,819/-. The ld. CIT (Appeals) gave relief to the extent of Rs.1,66,07,634/- on the ground that in so far as the interest expendit…

Hero Moto Corp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Neac, Delhi

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

…owance as per Rule 8D needs to be deleted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers 326 ITR 1(SC) ii. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. VS. DCIT: 394 ITR 449(SC) iii. Maxopp Investment Ltd: 347 ITR 272 (Del.)- Affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in 402 ITR 640 iv. CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd.: 401 ITR 445 (SC) v. PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd.:[2019] 261 Taxman 179 (Delhi) vi. H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: 399 ITR 576 (Del) vii. Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) viii. PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.) ix. CIT v. Abhi…

ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi vs. Hero Motors Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

…. Consequently, this issue is remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh in the light of the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of as Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 and Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT – (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del.) by providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. So, Grounds No.1 & 2 in ITA Nos.5579/Del/2017 & 5580/Del/2017 are determined in favour of the Revenue for statistical purposes. GROUDNS NO.1 & 2 IN ITA NO.5579/DEL/20117 ITA NO.5580/DEL/20117 8. Disallowance of Rs.31,74,044/- & Rs.37,68,570/- for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 respecti…

ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi vs. Hero Motors Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

…. Consequently, this issue is remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh in the light of the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of as Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 and Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT – (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del.) by providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. So, Grounds No.1 & 2 in ITA Nos.5579/Del/2017 & 5580/Del/2017 are determined in favour of the Revenue for statistical purposes. GROUDNS NO.1 & 2 IN ITA NO.5579/DEL/20117 ITA NO.5580/DEL/20117 8. Disallowance of Rs.31,74,044/- & Rs.37,68,570/- for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 respecti…

M/S. Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2120/Del./2014 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) ITA No.969/Del./2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) ITA No.2353/Del./2013 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/s. Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd., vs. Addl.CIT, B – 30, Sector 57, Range 11, Noida – 201 301. New Delhi. (PAN : AAACI0106J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 29.09.2021 Date of Order : 16.11.2021 O R D E R PER KULDIP…

M/S. Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2120/Del./2014 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) ITA No.969/Del./2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) ITA No.2353/Del./2013 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/s. Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd., vs. Addl.CIT, B – 30, Sector 57, Range 11, Noida – 201 301. New Delhi. (PAN : AAACI0106J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 29.09.2021 Date of Order : 16.11.2021 O R D E R PER KULDIP…

M/S Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2120/Del./2014 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) ITA No.969/Del./2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) ITA No.2353/Del./2013 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/s. Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd., vs. Addl.CIT, B – 30, Sector 57, Range 11, Noida – 201 301. New Delhi. (PAN : AAACI0106J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 29.09.2021 Date of Order : 16.11.2021 O R D E R PER KULDIP…

Inductis (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

…as been made in the Debt Oriented Funds; that in the earlier three years, identical issue has already been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and relied upon the decisions rendered by Hon’ble High Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del.) and the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Petronet LNG Ltd. in ITA No.5230/Del/2015 for AY 2009-10 & Ors.. 10. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the assessee contended inter alia that AO has recorded satisfaction and has duly discussed 7 ITA No.1510/Del./2018…

Inductis (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

…as been made in the Debt Oriented Funds; that in the earlier three years, identical issue has already been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and relied upon the decisions rendered by Hon’ble High Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del.) and the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Petronet LNG Ltd. in ITA No.5230/Del/2015 for AY 2009-10 & Ors.. 10. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the assessee contended inter alia that AO has recorded satisfaction and has duly discussed 7 ITA No.1510/Del./2018…

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

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

…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? 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT (A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 6,45,673/- 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

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

…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? 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT (A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 6,45,673/- 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…

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

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

…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? 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT (A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 6,45,673/- 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…