Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

…irst ground is that the CIT(A) should have specifically directed that the stock in trade should not be reckoned in computing disallowance u/s 14A. This claim is directly against the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC). At page 667, para 39 the Supreme Court has observed: “In those cases where shares are held as stock-in-trade, the main purpose is to trade in those shares and earn profits therefrom. However, we are not concerned with those profits which would naturally be treated as ‘income’ under the head ‘Profits and gains from business and profession’.…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

…irst ground is that the CIT(A) should have specifically directed that the stock in trade should not be reckoned in computing disallowance u/s 14A. This claim is directly against the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC). At page 667, para 39 the Supreme Court has observed: “In those cases where shares are held as stock-in-trade, the main purpose is to trade in those shares and earn profits therefrom. However, we are not concerned with those profits which would naturally be treated as ‘income’ under the head ‘Profits and gains from business and profession’.…

THE BOMBAY DYEING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical\npurposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Jm\Nand\Nms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Am\N\Nita No.5274/Mum/2025\N(Assessment Year: 2018-19)\Nm/S. The Bombay Dyeing And\Nmanufacturing Company Limited,\Nneville House, Jn Heredia Marg,\Nballard Estate,\Nmumbai - 400 001\Npan: Aaact2328K\Nvs.\Nnational Faceless Appeal Centre,\Ndelhi (Deputy Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1),\Nmumbai - 400001\N(Appellant)\N(Respondent)\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Yogesh Thar, A.R.\Nms. Sukanya Jairam, A.R &\Nshri Saurabh Surana, A.R.\Nrespondent By\N:\Nshri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N22.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N18.03.2025\Norder\Nper Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:\Nthis Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned\Ncommissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. Cit(A)' For Short], National Faceless\Nappeal Centre (‘Nfac' For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'),\Npertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.' For Short) 2018-19.\N2.\Nthe Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N“1. Ground No. 1: Disallowance Of Rs. 4,65,28,171/- Under Section 14A Of The\Nact:\N1.

…only those investments which have\nyielded exempt income. The lower authorities had rejected the assessee's contention by\nholding that all equity instruments are for earning exempt income and relied on the decision\nof Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [(2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC)] stating that all investments\nare to be considered whether it has earned dividend income or not. This, in our view, is\nfaulted for the reason that it is now a settled proposition of law that only investment which\nhas yielded exempt income is to be considered for the purpose of determining the average\ninvestments prior to the amendment in…

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA STEEL LTD, MUMBAI

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 DCIT-2(3)(1) Tata Steel Ltd. Mumbai Bombay House Vs. 24, Homi Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 (PAN: AAACT2803M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Tata Steel Ltd. DCIT-2(3)(1) Bombay House Mumbai Vs. 24, Homi Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 (PAN: AAACT2803M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, Advocate Revenue : Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 25.11…

TATA STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 DCIT-2(3)(1) Tata Steel Ltd. Mumbai Bombay House Vs. 24, Homi Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 (PAN: AAACT2803M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Tata Steel Ltd. DCIT-2(3)(1) Bombay House Mumbai Vs. 24, Homi Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 (PAN: AAACT2803M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, Advocate Revenue : Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 25.11…

BAJAJ CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

…ng the recording of satisfaction under section 14A(2) position governing the recording of satisfaction under section 14A(2) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (402 ITR 640) v. CIT (402 ITR 640) has held that the Assessing Office the Assessing Officer must, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, record a clear and having regard to the accounts of the assessee, record a having regard to the accounts of the assessee, record a reasoned dissatisfaction reasoned dissatisfaction with the correctness of the assesse…

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIRCLE 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

…strategic investment made by the Assessee in the joint venture Assessment Year 2016-2017 company. The Learned CIT(A) relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi : [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) while concluding as aforesaid. However, no finding was returned by the CIT(A) on the issue of lack of satisfaction raised by the Assessee. 10.4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee had carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. 10.5. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee reiterated the submission made before the Learned CI…

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

…strategic investment made by the Assessee in the joint venture Assessment Year 2016-2017 company. The Learned CIT(A) relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi : [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) while concluding as aforesaid. However, no finding was returned by the CIT(A) on the issue of lack of satisfaction raised by the Assessee. 10.4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee had carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. 10.5. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee reiterated the submission made before the Learned CI…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. TRENT LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Dcit Trent Limited, 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar G-Block, Plot No. C Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. 60 Trent House, Mumbai-400 020 Beside City Bank Bandra K Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl1838J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Assessee By Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2026

…g investments. The Tribunal held that such approach did not satisfy the statutory requirement of section 14A(2). 18. The Co-ordinate Bench further fortified its conclusion by referring to binding judicial precedents, namely: (i) Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (402 ITR 640) (SC), wherein the Supreme Court held that before applying Rule 8D, the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction that the assessee’s suo motu disallowance is incorrect, having regard to the accounts; (ii) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (394 ITR 449) (SC), wherein it was held that the condition precedent for applying Rule 8D is re…

AMBUJA CEMENTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

…ssee, without taking into account its claim for excluding Strategic Investment, needed proper verification by the AO. His observations are in sync with the landmark decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) in which similar issue of strategic Page | 15 ITA No. 3474/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Ambuja Cements Limited, Mumbai investment was decided in favour of the Revenue for the purposes of computation of disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D.We are of the considered opinion that it was incumbent on the AO to examine a third party report especia…

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA UNIVERSAL PVT LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

…T(A) is right in law, in justifying in holding that the disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income, in contravention of the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 and without appreciating the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (402 ITR 640)?" 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in law, in allowing the deduction of? 9,00,00,000 representing the principal amount of loan to a wholly-owned subsidiary written off as bad debt, despite the admitted fact that such principal amount had never been taken into account in computing taxable inco…

ELEGANT MARBLES AND GRANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee being ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarelegant Marbles & Grani Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Industries Limited Tax, Circle 6(2)(2), Mumbai Room No. 506, 5Th Floor Aayakar Raghuvanshi Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai Parel, Mumbai-400013 400020 Pan: Aaace1584C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shreyash Shah, Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18, Date Of Order 06.11.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle.-6(2)(2), Mumbai (For Brevity The “Ld. Ao”), Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Date Of Order 12.12.2019. 2

…ead with Rule 8D(2) of the Rules is that the AO must be satisfied that the computation for disallowance made by assessee is incorrect in respect to expenses relatable to exempt income. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC), held as under: - “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 theoryof apportionment, the AO needs 5 ITA 7415/Mum/2025 Elegant Marbles and Grani Industries Ltd. to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

…e of only those investments from which the exempt income is earned during the year under consideration which is clearly not in accordance with the provisions of section 144 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Маxорр Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made under section 14A r.w. 115 disregarding the provisions of section 115/8(2) rw. Explanation-1 r.w. clause f of which requires any expenditure in relation to the exempt income also to be taken into consideration while computing the boo…

DCIT-5(2)(1),MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

…e of only those investments from which the exempt income is earned during the year under consideration which is clearly not in accordance with the provisions of section 144 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Маxорр Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 - 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made under section 14A r.w. 115 disregarding the provisions of section 115/8(2) rw. Explanation-1 r.w. clause f of which requires any expenditure in relation to the exempt income also to be taken into consideration while computing the bo…

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1451/MUM/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Bank of India, 8th Floor, Taxation Department, Star House, C-5, G-Block, Bandra – Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400051 PAN: AAACB0472C v/s Appellant Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – 2(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Respondent ITA No.1547/MUM/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Bank…

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1452/MUM/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bank of India, 8th Floor, Taxation Department, Star House, C-5, G-Block, Bandra – Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) ……………. Appellant Mumbai – 400051 PAN: AAACB0472C v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – 2(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, ……………. Respondent Mumbai – 400020 ITA No.1548/MUM/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…is an admitted fact that the exempt income was earned by the assessee from the investment held by it as stock-in-trade. This issue has been conclusively determined by the Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018) 91 taxmann.com 154/254 Taxman 325/402 ITR 640/[201815 SCC 523. In this matter, the Supreme Court was concerned with a batch of appeals which also included a challenge to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Pr. CIT v. State Bank of Patiala [2017) 78 taxmann.com 3/245 Taxman 273/391 ITR 218 and the facts of the said case are para materia to the case in hand. In the case of State…