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

Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1958/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…1 ITA Nos. 1955 to 1959/Del/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Triveni Engineering & Industries Vs Addl. CIT(A) Ltd. Range-16 8th Floor Express Trade Tower, New Delhi 15-16, Sector-16A Noida AABCT6370L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA No. 1956 to 1959/DEL/2016 ( A.Y 2002-03 to 2005-06) Triveni Engineering & Industries Vs ACIT Ltd. Circle-16(1) 8th Floor Express Trade Tower, New Delhi 15-16, Sector-16A Noida AABCT6370L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Rohit…

Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1957/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…1 ITA Nos. 1955 to 1959/Del/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Triveni Engineering & Industries Vs Addl. CIT(A) Ltd. Range-16 8th Floor Express Trade Tower, New Delhi 15-16, Sector-16A Noida AABCT6370L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA No. 1956 to 1959/DEL/2016 ( A.Y 2002-03 to 2005-06) Triveni Engineering & Industries Vs ACIT Ltd. Circle-16(1) 8th Floor Express Trade Tower, New Delhi 15-16, Sector-16A Noida AABCT6370L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Rohit…

Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1956/DEL/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…1 ITA Nos. 1955 to 1959/Del/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Triveni Engineering & Industries Vs Addl. CIT(A) Ltd. Range-16 8th Floor Express Trade Tower, New Delhi 15-16, Sector-16A Noida AABCT6370L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA No. 1956 to 1959/DEL/2016 ( A.Y 2002-03 to 2005-06) Triveni Engineering & Industries Vs ACIT Ltd. Circle-16(1) 8th Floor Express Trade Tower, New Delhi 15-16, Sector-16A Noida AABCT6370L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Rohit…

Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1955/DEL/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…1 ITA Nos. 1955 to 1959/Del/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Triveni Engineering & Industries Vs Addl. CIT(A) Ltd. Range-16 8th Floor Express Trade Tower, New Delhi 15-16, Sector-16A Noida AABCT6370L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA No. 1956 to 1959/DEL/2016 ( A.Y 2002-03 to 2005-06) Triveni Engineering & Industries Vs ACIT Ltd. Circle-16(1) 8th Floor Express Trade Tower, New Delhi 15-16, Sector-16A Noida AABCT6370L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Rohit…

Addl. CIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi vs. Mmtc Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5452/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 5452/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Mmtc Ltd., Special Range-6, Core-1, Scope Complex, New Delhi Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm1433E Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Pamita M. Biswas, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.07.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pamita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 11BSection 14A

…educing disallowance of Rs.10,08,27,210/- to Rs.1,75,000/- u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering ratio decidendi as upheld in cases of CIT Vs Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and Maxopp Investment Vs CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Del.) on application of provisions of Section 14A of the Act?” 3. All the grounds relates to deletion of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The short issue involved in the case is that whether only those investments are to be considered for computing the average value of investments which yielded…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mmtc Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3575/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 3575/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Mmtc Ltd., Special Range-6, Core-1, Scope Complex, New Delhi Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm1433E Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Pamita M. Biswas, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.07.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pamita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 14Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (E-Court Module) ITA No. 3575/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Addl. CIT, Vs M/s MMTC Ltd., Special Range-6, Core-1, Scope Complex, New Delhi Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACM1433E Assessee by : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Pamita M. Biswas, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 23.07.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 28.07.2020 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order…

M/S. Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 5794/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 3Section 80I

…unds clearly brings into picture expenditure by way of cost of funds and that assessee’s claim that he has not incurred any expenditure to earn dividend income is not acceptable. 9. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT – (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del.) held that AO in order to invoke provisions contained u/s 14A read with Rule 8D is required to return a finding that, “he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure”. Even otherwise “expenditure incurred does not include imagined expenditure”. 10. Furthermore, when assessee is having it…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Nestle India Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 2020/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2020AY 2009-10
Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 244ASection 92

…ence of the Assessing Officer having recorded satisfaction the impugned disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule-8D was unwarranted. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Maxopp Investment Limited, reported in 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) wherein it had been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that before making any disallowance under the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule-8D, the Assessing Officer has to record a finding that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the expenditure incurred. Alternatively, it was pleaded that the disallowance, if…

M/S. Nestle India Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ltu, New Delhi

ITA 1954/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2020AY 2009-10
Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 244ASection 92

…ence of the Assessing Officer having recorded satisfaction the impugned disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule-8D was unwarranted. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Maxopp Investment Limited, reported in 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) wherein it had been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that before making any disallowance under the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule-8D, the Assessing Officer has to record a finding that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the expenditure incurred. Alternatively, it was pleaded that the disallowance, if…

M/S. Mphasis Software & Services (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1948/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaranita No.1948(Bang)/2018 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Mphasis Software & Services (India) Pvt.Ltd., Bagmane World Technology Centre, 1St Floor, Wing A, Wtc 3, Kr Puram, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru-560 048 Pan No.Aaccm5986K Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Officer, Circle-4,(1)(2), Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.R.Girish, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Girish, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

…ITA No.1948(B)2018 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES : “A”, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1948(Bang)/2018 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Mphasis Software & Services (India) Pvt.Ltd., Bagmane World Technology Centre, 1st Floor, wing a, WTC 3, KR Puram, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru-560 048 PAN No.AACCM5986K Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Circle-4,(1)(2), Bangalore Respondent Appellant by : Shri K.R.Girish, CA Revenue by : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT Date of hearing…

Wimco Seeding Ltd vs. JCIT, Spl. Range-22

In the result, appeal of the assessee for all these three years are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2757/DEL/2002[1991-1992]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2020AY 1991-1992

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2755, 2756, 2757/Del/2002 (Assessment Year: 1989-90 to 1991-92) Wimco Seedlings Ltd, Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income C-14, 2nd Floor, Lajpat Nagar, Part- Tax, III, New Delhi Special Range-22, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Revenue by: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16/01/2020 Date of pronouncement 22/06/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the ord…

Wimco Seeding Ltd vs. JCIT, Spl. Range-22

In the result, appeal of the assessee for all these three years are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2756/DEL/2002[1990-1991]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2020AY 1990-1991

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2755, 2756, 2757/Del/2002 (Assessment Year: 1989-90 to 1991-92) Wimco Seedlings Ltd, Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income C-14, 2nd Floor, Lajpat Nagar, Part- Tax, III, New Delhi Special Range-22, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Revenue by: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16/01/2020 Date of pronouncement 22/06/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the ord…

Wimco Seeding Ltd vs. JCIT, Spl. Range-22

In the result, appeal of the assessee for all these three years are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2755/DEL/2002[1989-1990]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2020AY 1989-1990

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2755, 2756, 2757/Del/2002 (Assessment Year: 1989-90 to 1991-92) Wimco Seedlings Ltd, Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income C-14, 2nd Floor, Lajpat Nagar, Part- Tax, III, New Delhi Special Range-22, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Revenue by: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16/01/2020 Date of pronouncement 22/06/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the ord…

The DCIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Aspinwall & Co. Ltd, Cochin

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

ITA 133/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM&GEORGE GEORGE K., JM ITA Nos. 60 & 61/Coch/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee -Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee…

M/S Aspinwall & Co., Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

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

ITA 128/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM&GEORGE GEORGE K., JM ITA Nos. 60 & 61/Coch/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee -Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee…

Aspinwall & Company Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

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

ITA 61/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM&GEORGE GEORGE K., JM ITA Nos. 60 & 61/Coch/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee -Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee…

Aspinwall & Company Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

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

ITA 60/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM&GEORGE GEORGE K., JM ITA Nos. 60 & 61/Coch/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee -Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Asahi India Glass Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2501/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 43A

…by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 394 ITR 449 and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. 370 ITR 338, CIT vs. Hero Management Service Ltd. 360 ITR 68 and Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 347 ITR 272. 26. Ld. AR for the taxpayer further contended that the issue as to the similar disallowance made in the preceding year for 2007-08 has been restored to the AO by the Tribunal vide order dated 26.02.2018 (supra). Keeping in view the request made by the ld. AR for the taxpayer, we are of the considered view that this issue is also required to b…

M/S. Asahi India Glass Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1638/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 43A

…by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 394 ITR 449 and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. 370 ITR 338, CIT vs. Hero Management Service Ltd. 360 ITR 68 and Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 347 ITR 272. 26. Ld. AR for the taxpayer further contended that the issue as to the similar disallowance made in the preceding year for 2007-08 has been restored to the AO by the Tribunal vide order dated 26.02.2018 (supra). Keeping in view the request made by the ld. AR for the taxpayer, we are of the considered view that this issue is also required to b…

Wns Global Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2257/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka & Shri Manish KanthFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Sanjay & Smt. Kavita Kaushik
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 92C

…ingly, the ld counsel submitted that the disallowance sustained by the DRP is erroneous and wrong. The learned AR relied on the following decisions • Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom) • Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Ors. vs. CIT [2011] 347 ITR 272 (Del), which was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 91 taxmann.com 154 (SC) [2018] 51.1. Without prejudice to the arguments of the assessee in relation to invoking of Rule 8D, the learned AR submitted that interest expenditure of Rs 55.38 crores were directly attributable to a particular income/receipt. The learned AR submitted that th…