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 367,154 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

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

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 3437/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 145Section 14ASection 32Section 37(1)Section 40

…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…

Addlcit, New Delhi vs. M/S Mmtc Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5166/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Mmtc Limited, Vs. Addl. Cit, Core: 1, Scope Complex – 7, Special Range : 6, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaacm1433E & Addl. Cit, Vs. M/S. Mmtc Limited, Special Range : 6, Core: 1, Scope Complex – New Delhi. 7, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaacm1433E (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; &For Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas
Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) M/s. MMTC Limited, Vs. Addl. CIT, Core: 1, Scope Complex – 7, Special Range : 6, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 003. PAN: AAACM1433E AND Addl. CIT, Vs. M/s. MMTC Limited, Special Range : 6, Core: 1, Scope Complex – New Delhi. 7, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. PAN: AAACM1433E (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee by : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; & Ms. Deepashree Rao, C. A.; Department by…

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

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

ITA 5147/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Mmtc Limited, Vs. Addl. Cit, Core: 1, Scope Complex – 7, Special Range : 6, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaacm1433E & Addl. Cit, Vs. M/S. Mmtc Limited, Special Range : 6, Core: 1, Scope Complex – New Delhi. 7, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaacm1433E (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; &For Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas
Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) M/s. MMTC Limited, Vs. Addl. CIT, Core: 1, Scope Complex – 7, Special Range : 6, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 003. PAN: AAACM1433E AND Addl. CIT, Vs. M/s. MMTC Limited, Special Range : 6, Core: 1, Scope Complex – New Delhi. 7, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. PAN: AAACM1433E (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee by : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; & Ms. Deepashree Rao, C. A.; Department by…

ACIT, Circle- 17(1), New Delhi vs. Mlv Credits Holding & Leasing Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6668/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Vs M/S Modern Mvl Credits Circle-17(1), Holding & Leasing Ltd. New Delhi F-79,/18, Sainik Farm, New Delhi-110062 Pan-Aaacm9072H Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…d.CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 2,12,03,476/- u/s 14A of the Act without considering ratio decidendi as upheld in cases of CIT vs. Wolfort 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.” 2. The only effective ground is against the deletion of addition of Rs.2,12,03,476/- made by invoking provisions of section 14A of the I…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 03, New Delhi vs. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5941/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: S/Shri R.S. Singhvi & Satyajeet Goel
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-1” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.5940 & 5941/DEL/2017 Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Addl. CIT, Special Range-03, v. DLF Ltd., New Delhi. DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACD3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Cos. No.5 & 6/DEL/2021 Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 DLF Ltd., v. Addl. CIT, Special Range-03, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACD3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR Respondent by: S/Shri R.S. Singhvi &…

The South Indian Bank Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-009606-009606 - 2011Supreme Court09 Sept 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

Section 14Section 14A

…e, though the assessee has to ultimately trade those shares by selling them to earn profits. The situation here is, therefore, different from the case like Maxopp Investment Ltd. [Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 4855 : (2012) 347 ITR 272] where the assessee would continue to hold those shares as it wants to retain control over the investee company. In that case, whenever dividend is declared by the investee company that would necessarily be earned by the assessee and the assessee alone. Therefore, even at the time of investing into those shares, the assessee knows that it…

Exlservices.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ltu, Circle- 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7392/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat(Through Video Conferencing) Exlservices.Com (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 414, 4Th Floor, Plot No.10 Circle – 1, Nbcc Plaza & 11, Dlp Jasola Tower-B, Pushp Vihar, Dda District Centre, Saket, New Delhi New Delhi - 110025 Pan No. Aaace 5174 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Saksham Singhal, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 31.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 155JSection 271(1)(c)

…o the accounts of the assessee, which is mandatory and for the aforesaid proposition he relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT 394 ITR 449 (SC), Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 - affirmed by Supreme Court in 402 ITR 640 and HT Media Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT 399 ITR 576 (Del). He thereafter submitted that on identical facts in A.Y. 2011-12, the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal deleted the disallowance by holding that in the absence of any satisfaction recorded by the AO with respect to the examination of the books of account of the…

Hero Solar Energy (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

Accordingly, no additions are called for. Hence, Ground no.3 is allowed

ITA 359/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s received or receivable during the relevant previous year. [Para 23]." In the said judgment the Hon'ble Delhi High Court followed the case of CIT vs. Holsim India P. Ltd. 57 Taxmann.com 28 (2015) Delhi and distinguished the decision of Maxopp Investment Ltd. 347 ITR 272. Appellant has also relied upon various judgments in his favour on the same lines. Since, there is no exempt income during the year, the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court is squarely applicable In the case of appellant and accordingly, no additions are called for. Hence, Ground no.3 is allowed.” 7. Bare perusal of the findings returned…

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

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

ITA 4019/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ved Jain, CA and Shri Ashish
Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 40

…ing the relevant previous year. [Para 23]." In the said judgment the Hon'ble Delhi High Court followed the case of CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. 57 Taxmann.com 28 (2015) Delhi and distinguished the decision of Maxopp Investment Ltd. I.T.A. No.4019/DEL/2018 4 347 ITR 272. Appellant has also relied upon various judgments in his favour on the same lines. Since, there is no claim of exempt income during the year, the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court is squarely applicable in the case of appellant and accordingly, no additions are called for. Hence, Ground nos. 2 & 3 are allowed.” 5. Thus, it is clear tha…

DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi vs. Hcl Comnet Systems and Services Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 385/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Vohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Baranwal, Senior DR
Section 14A

…mining the Assessee's accounts, the question of applying the formula under Rule 8D (2) does not arise. That this is a mandatory pre-requisite for applying Rule 8D (2) is fairly well-settled.” 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 also held that satisfaction of the AO is mandatory that suo moto disallowance made under section 14A was not correct by returning following findings :- “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 sat…

Hcl Comnet Systems & Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

ITA 137/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Vohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Baranwal, Senior DR
Section 14A

…mining the Assessee's accounts, the question of applying the formula under Rule 8D (2) does not arise. That this is a mandatory pre-requisite for applying Rule 8D (2) is fairly well-settled.” 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 also held that satisfaction of the AO is mandatory that suo moto disallowance made under section 14A was not correct by returning following findings :- “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 sat…

Hcl Comnet Systems & Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

ITA 136/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Vohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Baranwal, Senior DR
Section 14A

…mining the Assessee's accounts, the question of applying the formula under Rule 8D (2) does not arise. That this is a mandatory pre-requisite for applying Rule 8D (2) is fairly well-settled.” 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 also held that satisfaction of the AO is mandatory that suo moto disallowance made under section 14A was not correct by returning following findings :- “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 sat…

Hcl Comnet Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

ITA 135/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Vohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Baranwal, Senior DR
Section 14A

…mining the Assessee's accounts, the question of applying the formula under Rule 8D (2) does not arise. That this is a mandatory pre-requisite for applying Rule 8D (2) is fairly well-settled.” 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 also held that satisfaction of the AO is mandatory that suo moto disallowance made under section 14A was not correct by returning following findings :- “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 sat…

DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi vs. Hcl Comnet Systems & Services Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 100/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Vohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Baranwal, Senior DR
Section 14A

…mining the Assessee's accounts, the question of applying the formula under Rule 8D (2) does not arise. That this is a mandatory pre-requisite for applying Rule 8D (2) is fairly well-settled.” 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 also held that satisfaction of the AO is mandatory that suo moto disallowance made under section 14A was not correct by returning following findings :- “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 sat…

M/S. National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3367/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Pundir, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 14ASection 37

…ase, Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 15,688/- u/s 14A of the Act 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? 10. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,32,750/- on account of additional depreciation claimed u/s 32 (l)(iia) of the Act without considering the fact that the relevant provisions are affected w…

ITO, Ward- 12(2), New Delhi vs. Indica Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3852/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Kapil Goel, Advocate
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80ISection 8D(2)(iii)

…fficer had ignored the fact that the assessee had itself disallowed certain amount of expense attributable to earning of exempt income. While noticing various decisions in DCIT vs. Jindal Photo Ltd. (ITA No. 814/Del/2011, Maxopp Investment ld. & Ors. Vs. CIT, 347 ITR 272 (Del), DTC India Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No. 580 & 581/Del/2009, CIT vs. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd. (ITA No. 115/2011 order dated 25.11.2014 and Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 59 taxmann.com 295(Del), ld. CIT(A) recorded a finding that without pointing out any discrepancy in the suo moto disallowance made by assessee, it is not justified for the A…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi vs. Tv Today Network Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5204/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Senior DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

…otu disallowance. So, in the absence of satisfaction recorded by the AO, mechanical invoking of provisions contained u/s 14A read with Rule 8D is not permissible as has been held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del.), the operative part of which is extracted as under:- “Section 14A even prior to the introduction of sub-sections (2) and (3) would require the Assessing Officer to first reject the claim of the assessee with regard to the extent of such expenditure and such rejection must be for disclosed cogent reasons. It is then that the question of…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. United Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2155/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: PendingITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Acit, Vs. M/S. United Hotels Limited Special Range – 9, The Ambassador Hotel, New Delhi Sujan Singh Park, Cornwallis Road, Pan No. Aaacu 0031 C New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R. Revenue By Shri Jagdish Ajmani, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 14/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ACIT, Vs. M/s. United Hotels Limited Special Range – 9, The Ambassador Hotel, New Delhi Sujan Singh Park, Cornwallis Road, PAN No. AAACU 0031 C New Delhi-110003 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R. Revenue by Shri Jagdish Ajmani, C.A. Date of hearing: 14/07/2021 Date of Pronouncement: 28/07/2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 22.11.2016 of…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nimai Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2115/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Acit, Vs. M/S. United Hotels Limited Special Range – 9, The Ambassador Hotel, New Delhi Sujan Singh Park, Cornwallis Road, Pan No. Aaacu 0031 C New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R. Revenue By Shri Jagdish Ajmani, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 14/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ACIT, Vs. M/s. United Hotels Limited Special Range – 9, The Ambassador Hotel, New Delhi Sujan Singh Park, Cornwallis Road, PAN No. AAACU 0031 C New Delhi-110003 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R. Revenue by Shri Jagdish Ajmani, C.A. Date of hearing: 14/07/2021 Date of Pronouncement: 28/07/2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 22.11.2016 of…

National Building Construction Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 18(1), New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order

ITA 4287/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblea N D Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. D. R
Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 37(1)Section 40

…mstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) is legally Justified in deletingdisallowance u/s 14A of the Act without considering ratio decidendi as upheld in cases of CIT Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltdd [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and Maxopp Investment Vs CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) onapplication of provision of section 14A of the Act? " 4. Whether infacts and on circumstances of the case,the Ld.CIT (A) is Legally justified indeleting disallowance of Rs. 1,92,30,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non-deduction of TDS on ‘Bank Guarantee Expenses’ by ignoring the contents of Notification No. 56/2012 of the C…