Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

402 ITR 640Supreme Court of India2018#21 most cited

What is Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Disallowance under Section 14A is not automatic and requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D. Only investments yielding exempt income are considered for disallowance, irrespective of their strategic nature.

1,596

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Maxopp Investment Ltd v CIT · Maxopp SC 2018 · Section 14A disallowance · Rule 8D application · expenditure for exempt income · only dividend bearing investments · satisfaction Section 14A(2) · strategic investment disallowance · disallowance not automatic · 402 ITR 640

Also reported as

91 Taxmann.com 154254 Taxmann 325301 CTR 489

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 115JBSection 8DSection 37(1)Section 1961Section 250Section 143(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 14a(1)section 14a(2)strategic investmentdisallowance under section 14adisallowance u/s 14asection 10(34)section 14asection 36(1)(vii)section 40a(2)enduring benefitbook profitssection 115j

Judgments citing Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

Union Bank of India, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 365/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

…u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of IT Rules, 1962. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2018) 402 ITR 640 (S.C). He, therefore, submitted that the addition made by the AO should be deleted. 34. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supporting order of the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the Department by the decision of the ITAT, in appellant’s own case for the earlier A.Ys, where the Tribunal upheld computation of disallowanc…

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile- Andhra Bank), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 364/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

…u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of IT Rules, 1962. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2018) 402 ITR 640 (S.C). He, therefore, submitted that the addition made by the AO should be deleted. 34. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supporting order of the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the Department by the decision of the ITAT, in appellant’s own case for the earlier A.Ys, where the Tribunal upheld computation of disallowanc…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Andhra Bank, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 351/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

…u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of IT Rules, 1962. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2018) 402 ITR 640 (S.C). He, therefore, submitted that the addition made by the AO should be deleted. 34. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supporting order of the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the Department by the decision of the ITAT, in appellant’s own case for the earlier A.Ys, where the Tribunal upheld computation of disallowanc…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Andhra Bank, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 350/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

…u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of IT Rules, 1962. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2018) 402 ITR 640 (S.C). He, therefore, submitted that the addition made by the AO should be deleted. 34. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supporting order of the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the Department by the decision of the ITAT, in appellant’s own case for the earlier A.Ys, where the Tribunal upheld computation of disallowanc…

Lycos Internet Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1769/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, СА
Section 14ASection 249(4)(a)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…ere is no dividend income i.e. exempted during this year, the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act is hereby deleted. 7. We further note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT (402 ITR 640) has held in Para 39 and 40 as under: “39. 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'. What happens is…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Lycos Internet Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1550/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1550/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Lycos Internet Ltd Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaacl5827B (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1769/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Lycos Internet Ltd Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Pan:Aaacl5827B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Are Two Appeals, One By The Department Against The Order Dated 23/06/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A) & Another By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 26/02/2018 Passed

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 263

…o disallowance can be made u/s 14A. The relevant findings of the learned CIT (A) in para 5 reads as under: Page 5 of 32 ITA Nos 1550 and 1769 LYCOS Internet Ltd 7. We further note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT (402 ITR 640) has held in Para 39 and 40 as under: “39. In those cases, where shares are held as stock-in-trade, the main 38 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'. What happens…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result,appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 5915/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of V/S. M/S Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax बनाम 12Th Floor, 3(2)(1),Aayakarbhawan, Bakhtawarramnathgoenka Room No. 608 Mumbai – Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400020, Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacj1000A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी M/S Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd., V/S. Assistant Commissioner 12Th Floor, बनाम Of Income Tax 3(2)(1), Bakhtawarramnathgoenka Marg, Aayakarbhawan, Room No. 229Nariman Point Mumbai - 400 608 Mumbai – 400 020, 021, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacj1000A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakkani,ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Mathews (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 8D(2)(ii)

…10 ITA No. 5763 & 5915/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s Jindal Drugs Pvt.Ltd. satisfaction must reflect the fairness and fair procedure adopted by the AO in rejecting the claim of the assessee.Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) has held that proper satisfaction ought to have been recorded by the AO while making the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Held that the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D of Income Tax Rule has been made by the AO in a mechanical manner and without recording proper satisfaction as envisaged u/s 14Ar.w. rule 8D of the I.T. Rules. Consequently,…

ACIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India ( Erstwhile Corporation Bank), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1228/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri.B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S / Ms. LalithaFor Respondent: ShriAshish Heliwal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…e of exempt income earned during the relevant financial year. No disallowance can be made merely because investments capable of generating exempt income exist. Finally, in the judgment of the Hon’able Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT, New Delhi (402 ITR 640, SC), it was held that where shares are held as stock-in-trade, the primary purpose is to trade in those shares and earn profits there from. However, if exempt dividend income under Section 10(34) of the Act is also earned in the process, the expenditure attributable to such exempt dividend income must be apportioned and disallowed under Section…

Agrasen Engineering Industries Private Limited, Jaipur vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1085/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 111ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…pted income. Surmise or conjecture is no answer.” d) Reliance is placed on following case where it is held that the provisions of section 14A are not automatic i) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Maxopp Investment Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax (2018) 91 Taxmann.com 154 (SC) has examined the scope of Rule-14A vis-a-vis Rule-8D in detail. The pertinent part of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court is reproduced below for your kind perusal. “32. In the first instance, it needs to be recognised that as per section 14A(1) of the Act, deduction of that expenditure is not to be allowed which has been incurred by…

ACIT, Non-Corporate Cirle-8, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

ITA 254/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, IRS. CIT
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…evenue is against the disallowance under section 14A. The Ld. DR submitted on the lines of grounds of appeal. However, the Ld AR submitted that this issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd (402 ITR 640) and this Tribunal in ITA No.77/Mds/2014 vide order dated 03/04/2017 decided partly in the assessee's favour in its own case. The relevant portion of the order of this Tribunal dated 03.04.2017 is extracted as under:- 8. The second ground is with regard to disallowance u/s.14Ar.w.Rules 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 9. At the outset, the Id.A.…

ACIT, Non-Corporate Cirle-8, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

ITA 253/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…evenue is against the disallowance under section 14A. The Ld. DR submitted on the lines of grounds of appeal. However, the Ld AR submitted that this issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd (402 ITR 640) and this Tribunal in ITA No.77/Mds/2014 vide order dated 03/04/2017 decided partly in the assessee's favour in its own case. The relevant portion of the order of this Tribunal dated 03.04.2017 is extracted as under:- 8. The second ground is with regard to disallowance u/s.14Ar.w.Rules 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 9. At the outset, the Id.A.…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu(2), Chennai

Accordingly, this ground of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 203/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.661/Chny/2019, 202 & 203/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-2018) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Ltu (2) Chennai. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.914/Chny/2019, 253 & 254/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17&2017-2018) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Ltu (2) Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, IRS. CIT
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…evenue is against the disallowance under section 14A. The Ld. DR submitted on the lines of grounds of appeal. However, the Ld AR submitted that this issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd (402 ITR 640) and this Tribunal in ITA No.77/Mds/2014 vide order dated 03/04/2017 decided partly in the assessee’s favour in its own case. The relevant portion of the order of this Tribunal dated 03.04.2017 is extracted as under:- 8. The second ground is with regard to disallowance u/s.14Ar.w.Rules 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 9. At the outset, the Id.A.…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu(2), Chennai

ITA 202/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…evenue is against the disallowance under section 14A. The Ld. DR submitted on the lines of grounds of appeal. However, the Ld AR submitted that this issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd (402 ITR 640) and this Tribunal in ITA No.77/Mds/2014 vide order dated 03/04/2017 decided partly in the assessee's favour in its own case. The relevant portion of the order of this Tribunal dated 03.04.2017 is extracted as under:- 8. The second ground is with regard to disallowance u/s.14Ar.w.Rules 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 9. At the outset, the Id.A.…

ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

ITA 914/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…evenue is against the disallowance under section 14A. The Ld. DR submitted on the lines of grounds of appeal. However, the Ld AR submitted that this issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd (402 ITR 640) and this Tribunal in ITA No.77/Mds/2014 vide order dated 03/04/2017 decided partly in the assessee's favour in its own case. The relevant portion of the order of this Tribunal dated 03.04.2017 is extracted as under:- 8. The second ground is with regard to disallowance u/s.14Ar.w.Rules 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 9. At the outset, the Id.A.…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai

ITA 661/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…evenue is against the disallowance under section 14A. The Ld. DR submitted on the lines of grounds of appeal. However, the Ld AR submitted that this issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd (402 ITR 640) and this Tribunal in ITA No.77/Mds/2014 vide order dated 03/04/2017 decided partly in the assessee's favour in its own case. The relevant portion of the order of this Tribunal dated 03.04.2017 is extracted as under:- 8. The second ground is with regard to disallowance u/s.14Ar.w.Rules 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 9. At the outset, the Id.A.…

Trent Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4074/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: Shri Rajan Vora and Nikhil Tiwari, CA
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234Section 234CSection 250

…43/-. 6.3. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on several judicial precedents including that of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay which are listed below: 8 ITA No.4074/MUM/2024 Trent Limited, AY 2017-18 1. Maxopp Investment Limited 402 ITR 640 (SC) 2. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. 394 ITR 449 (SC) 3. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. 400 ITR 217 (Bom) 4. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd 98 taxmann.com 361 (SC), wherein the SLP filed by Department is dismissed 5. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd 113 taxmann.com 303 (Bom) 6. Bajaj Finance Ltd 110 taxmann.com 303 (Bom) 7. J…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- V (I), Kolkata vs. Birla Corporation Limited, Birla Building

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue is dismissed, as also the cross objection filed by the assessee for both the years

ITA 1024/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

…e Tax Rules without pointing out any defect or infirmity in the correctness of the assessee’s claim of expenditure. He, in this respect, has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2018) 402 ITR 640(SC). 23. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the record. Both the parties have fairly admitted that the issue has already been dealt with by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for earlier assessment year. This issue was also racked up in assessee’s own case in the latest decision of the Tribunal 07.02.2023 passed in ITA…

Kiri Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1513/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 234ASection 270ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1513/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kiri Industries Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of 7th Floor, Income Tax, Hasubhai Chambers, Circle-2(1)(1), Nr. Town Hall, Ahmedabad. Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. [PAN No.AAACK9025C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, AR Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR 12.12.2024 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 19.12.2024 O R D E R PER: DR. BRR KUMAR,…

ACIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6538/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 14A(2)

…er is not satisfied on an objective criteria in the context of its accounts, that suo motu disallowance claimed by the assessee is not proper. 12. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 154/254 Taxman 325/402 ITR 640 while upholding the view of the Delhi High Court has held that the Assessing Officer needs to record his non- satisfaction having regard to the sou motu disallowances claimed by the assessee in the context of its accounts. It is only thereafter, the occasion to apply rule SD of the Rules for apportionment of expenses can arise 13. In the present…

M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt. Limited, Rourkela vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 65/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…hi High Court in the case of Chemvist Limited, 378 ITR 33 (Del) has held that when the assessee is having no exempt income, no disallowance could be made in the hands of the assessee. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment vs CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC) has held that disallowance u/s.14A should not be made on the interest free amount used for exempt income. In the present case though the amount of disallowance worked out as per Rule 8D is higher than the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State bank of Patiala reported in (2018) 99 taxma…