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 367,164 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

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1955/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

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…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5525/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 5491 & 5492/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 ACIT, Vs. M/s. NIIT Technologies Ltd., Circle-13(1), 8, Balaji Estate, 1st Floor, New Delhi Guru Ravi Das Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi PAN :AAACN0332P (Appellant) (Respondent) And ITA No.5524 & 5525/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s. NIIT Technologies Ltd., Vs. ACIT, 8, Balaji Estate, 1st Floor, Circle-13(1), Guru Ravi Das Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAACN0332P (Appellant) (Resp…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5524/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 5491 & 5492/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 ACIT, Vs. M/s. NIIT Technologies Ltd., Circle-13(1), 8, Balaji Estate, 1st Floor, New Delhi Guru Ravi Das Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi PAN :AAACN0332P (Appellant) (Respondent) And ITA No.5524 & 5525/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s. NIIT Technologies Ltd., Vs. ACIT, 8, Balaji Estate, 1st Floor, Circle-13(1), Guru Ravi Das Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAACN0332P (Appellant) (Resp…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5492/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 5491 & 5492/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 ACIT, Vs. M/s. NIIT Technologies Ltd., Circle-13(1), 8, Balaji Estate, 1st Floor, New Delhi Guru Ravi Das Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi PAN :AAACN0332P (Appellant) (Respondent) And ITA No.5524 & 5525/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s. NIIT Technologies Ltd., Vs. ACIT, 8, Balaji Estate, 1st Floor, Circle-13(1), Guru Ravi Das Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAACN0332P (Appellant) (Resp…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5491/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 5491 & 5492/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 ACIT, Vs. M/s. NIIT Technologies Ltd., Circle-13(1), 8, Balaji Estate, 1st Floor, New Delhi Guru Ravi Das Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi PAN :AAACN0332P (Appellant) (Respondent) And ITA No.5524 & 5525/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s. NIIT Technologies Ltd., Vs. ACIT, 8, Balaji Estate, 1st Floor, Circle-13(1), Guru Ravi Das Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAACN0332P (Appellant) (Resp…

Shri. Shankarlal Gilada vs. The Income Tax Officer

ITA/200002/2018HC Karnataka22 Jan 2020

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260A

…the assessee, though the assesseehas 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…

Welspun Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 6759/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6759/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Welspun Steel Limited बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(3) B-Wing, Trade World, 9Th Air India Building, 19Th Vs. Floor, Kamala Mill Floor, Nariman Point, Compound, S. B. Marg, Mumbai-400021. Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5308G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Farrokh Irani Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -39, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013- 14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 210Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…owance u/s 14A of the Act. This decision was followed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 328 ITR 81 . 4.10. He further referred to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. 347 ITR 272, wherein it has been held that no disallowance could be made under the said section where no expenditure had ‘actually’ been incurred by the assessee in relation to earning of the exempt income. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court approved the contention raised by the assessee that the term ‘expenditure incurred’ appearing in Sec. 14A(1) of the Act woul…

M/S. Jaypee Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1384/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramanjaneyulu, Senior DR
Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92Section 92B

…0. 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 have been incurred by it to earn the dividend income”. In view of the matter, we are of the considered view that addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) u/s 14A is n…

Ats Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 5601/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.3080/Del./2017 ITA.No.5408 & 5601/Del./2018 Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 The ACIT, M/s. ATS Infrastructure Ltd., 711/92, Deepali, vs., Central Circle, Nehru Place, New Delhi. PIN – 110 019. Noida. PAN AADCA0609B (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ved Jain, Advocate And For Assessee : Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 15.01.2020 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.…

Ats Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 5408/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.3080/Del./2017 ITA.No.5408 & 5601/Del./2018 Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 The ACIT, M/s. ATS Infrastructure Ltd., 711/92, Deepali, vs., Central Circle, Nehru Place, New Delhi. PIN – 110 019. Noida. PAN AADCA0609B (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ved Jain, Advocate And For Assessee : Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 15.01.2020 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.…

M/S. Ats Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 3080/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.3080/Del./2017 ITA.No.5408 & 5601/Del./2018 Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 The ACIT, M/s. ATS Infrastructure Ltd., 711/92, Deepali, vs., Central Circle, Nehru Place, New Delhi. PIN – 110 019. Noida. PAN AADCA0609B (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ved Jain, Advocate And For Assessee : Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 15.01.2020 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.…

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Future Market Networks Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4470/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shir S Rifaur Rahmanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4470/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar PoddarFor Respondent: Miss. Dinkle Haria (AR)
Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHIR S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4470/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 The DCIT – 9(3)(2) Future Market Networks बनाम/ 418, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd., Knowledge House, Vs. 4th Floor, M.K Marg, Off Jogeswari Vikhroli Mumbai. Link Rd. Shyam Nagar Jogeswari East, Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCF2006M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar, CIT(DR) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Miss. Dinkle…

M/S. Gurgaon Gramin Bank, Rohtak vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 4520/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. D.R
Section 10(35)Section 14Section 14A

…essee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A) and it was submitted that A.O. made the addition under Rule 8D without recording any satisfaction. The assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 4 ITA.No.4520/Del./2016 M/s. Gurgaon Gramin Bank, Rohtak, Haryana. wherein it has been held that Rule 8D is not applicable automatically and before applying the same, A.O. has to first record his satisfaction and reject the claim of assessee with regard to extent of expenditure by having regard to the accounts of assessee and such rejection must…

Shri Dinesh Mills Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle -2(1)(1), Baroda

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

ITA 781/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR &
Section 10Section 11Section 115JSection 12Section 14ASection 154ASection 194HSection 40(1)(ia)

…that Rule 8D could not have been invoked is contrary to its own finding, and therefore, deletion needs to be quashed. Reliance is placed on the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Maxopp Investment Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in [2012] 347 ITR 272 [Delhi], wherein, introduction of Rule 8D is held prospective in nature. However, it has been held therein that the Assessing Officer if is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of the expenditure, prior to the introduction of Rule 8D, is entitled under the law to calculate the amount and determine the amount…

Tata Lockheed Martin Aerostructures Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2837/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y : 2012-13 :

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Ms. Samatha Mullamudi
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y : 2012-13 : Tata Lockheed Martin Aerostructures Ltd., vs. DCIT-1(3), Mumbai. Plot No. 21, Sy No. 1/1, (Respondent) Hardware Park, ImaratKancha, Raviryala Village, Maheshwaram Mandal Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad 500 005. PAN : AADCT5968N (Appellant) Assessee by : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Revenue by : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi Date of Hearing : 24/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 24/09/2019 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the assessee again…

M/S. Axis Aerospace & Technologies P Ltd., Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 766/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Axis Aerospace & The Commissioner Of Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax 54, Richmond Road, Vs. (Appeals) – 14, Bangalore – 560 025. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccb1728K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 14A

…called for under rule 8D(2)(iii) or not. The contention of the assessee that no expenditure was incurred to earn dividend income of Rs. 29,000/- was not accepted by the AO. As held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (347 ITR 272) it is not the purpose of the expenditure which is relevant. Once exempt income is earned, it means that some expenditure being incurred in relation to the exempt income which should be disallowed by applying formula laid down in rule 8D(2)(iii). Therefore, action of the AO is correct in applying rule 8D(2)(iii) but the amount of disallowance sho…

M/S. Ace Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3797/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Senior DR
Section 10Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…iture has been incurred to earn the exempt income is incorrect in his satisfaction rather mechanically proceeded to invoke the provisions contained under Rule 8D of the Act. 7. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT – (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del.) while deciding the identical issue has held 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…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

ITA 781/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE JUSTICE P.P. BHATT, PRESIDENT And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The DCIT बनाम/ 12th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.CIT Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACR0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan…

M/S. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

ITA 1782/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE JUSTICE P.P. BHATT, PRESIDENT And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The DCIT बनाम/ 12th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.CIT Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACR0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5529/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain , AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80

…s directed to be re- assessed by ld. CIT(A) by applying Rule 8D of the Rules but the Tribunal remanded the matter to the file of ld. AO for reconsideration taking into account the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., 347 ITR 272 (Del). We find such an order at page Nos. 11 to 59 of the paper book on this issue and at page no.7 of such order, the Tribunal reached a conclusion that the matter needs to be set aside to the file of the AO for reconsideration keeping in mind the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp. Investment Ltd. (supra). While resp…