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

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3371/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 1783/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 1784/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 1785/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) HDFC Bank Ltd., The DCIT-2(3)(1), Room No.552, 5th Floor, HDFC Bank House, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Delisle Road, S.O Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400013 Mumbai-400020. PAN : AAACH2702H Appellant) : Respondent) I.T.A. No. 3375/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 3374/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 3371/Mum/2023 (Assessmen…

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1785/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 1783/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 1784/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 1785/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) HDFC Bank Ltd., The DCIT-2(3)(1), Room No.552, 5th Floor, HDFC Bank House, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Delisle Road, S.O Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400013 Mumbai-400020. PAN : AAACH2702H Appellant) : Respondent) I.T.A. No. 3375/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 3374/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 3371/Mum/2023 (Assessmen…

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1784/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 1783/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 1784/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 1785/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) HDFC Bank Ltd., The DCIT-2(3)(1), Room No.552, 5th Floor, HDFC Bank House, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Delisle Road, S.O Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400013 Mumbai-400020. PAN : AAACH2702H Appellant) : Respondent) I.T.A. No. 3375/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 3374/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 3371/Mum/2023 (Assessmen…

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1783/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 1783/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 1784/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 1785/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) HDFC Bank Ltd., The DCIT-2(3)(1), Room No.552, 5th Floor, HDFC Bank House, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Delisle Road, S.O Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400013 Mumbai-400020. PAN : AAACH2702H Appellant) : Respondent) I.T.A. No. 3375/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 3374/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 3371/Mum/2023 (Assessmen…

M/S Dharani Developers Private Limited, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Circle 1(4), Nungambakkam Chennai

ITA 401/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397, 398, 399, 400 & 401/Chny/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Dharani Developers Private Vs. The Asst/Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, No. 1, Venus Colony Ii Street, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan:Aabcd6222D] Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Property Development & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Years Under Appeal. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

…evious year relevant to the assessment year 2015-16.” 6.2 By referring to various case law including the decision in the case of Joint Investments Private Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), the decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC), the Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that the disallowance under section 14A of the Act should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned during the previous year. Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of PCIT v. Envestor Venture Ltd. (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict…

M/S Dharani Developers Private Limited, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Circle 1(4), Nungambakkam Chennai

ITA 400/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397, 398, 399, 400 & 401/Chny/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Dharani Developers Private Vs. The Asst/Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, No. 1, Venus Colony Ii Street, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan:Aabcd6222D] Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Property Development & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Years Under Appeal. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

…evious year relevant to the assessment year 2015-16.” 6.2 By referring to various case law including the decision in the case of Joint Investments Private Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), the decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC), the Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that the disallowance under section 14A of the Act should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned during the previous year. Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of PCIT v. Envestor Venture Ltd. (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict…

M/S Dharani Developers Private Limited, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Circle 1(4), Nungambakkam Chennai

ITA 399/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397, 398, 399, 400 & 401/Chny/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Dharani Developers Private Vs. The Asst/Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, No. 1, Venus Colony Ii Street, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan:Aabcd6222D] Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Property Development & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Years Under Appeal. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

…evious year relevant to the assessment year 2015-16.” 6.2 By referring to various case law including the decision in the case of Joint Investments Private Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), the decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC), the Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that the disallowance under section 14A of the Act should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned during the previous year. Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of PCIT v. Envestor Venture Ltd. (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict…

M/S Dharani Developers Private Limited, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Circle 1(4), Nungambakkam Chennai

ITA 398/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397, 398, 399, 400 & 401/Chny/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Dharani Developers Private Vs. The Asst/Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, No. 1, Venus Colony Ii Street, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan:Aabcd6222D] Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Property Development & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Years Under Appeal. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

…evious year relevant to the assessment year 2015-16.” 6.2 By referring to various case law including the decision in the case of Joint Investments Private Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), the decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC), the Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that the disallowance under section 14A of the Act should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned during the previous year. Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of PCIT v. Envestor Venture Ltd. (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict…

M/S Dharani Developers Private Limited, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Circle 1(4), Nungambakkam Chennai

ITA 397/CHNY/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397, 398, 399, 400 & 401/Chny/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Dharani Developers Private Vs. The Asst/Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, No. 1, Venus Colony Ii Street, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan:Aabcd6222D] Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Property Development & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Years Under Appeal. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

…evious year relevant to the assessment year 2015-16.” 6.2 By referring to various case law including the decision in the case of Joint Investments Private Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), the decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC), the Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that the disallowance under section 14A of the Act should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned during the previous year. Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of PCIT v. Envestor Venture Ltd. (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict…

Brigs Trading Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 2270/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Dcit, Cir 6(1), R.No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Appellant

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

…ioner of Income Tax vs. McDonalds India Pvt. Ltd., ITA 725/2018 decided on 22nd October, 2018 cannot exceed the exempt income of that year. This decision follows the ratio and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) and the earlier judgments of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 and_CIT vs. Holcim Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR (Del.) 282. Relevant portion of the judgment in McDonalds India Pvt. Ltd.(supra) reads:- "8. The decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (Supra) is significant and does answer the question in issue. Thi…

Brigs Trading Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 2269/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Dalpat Shah & Mr. B.S. Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…ioner of Income Tax vs. McDonalds India Pvt. Ltd., ITA 725/2018 decided on 22nd October, 2018 cannot exceed the exempt income of that year. This decision follows the ratio and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) and the earlier judgments of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 and_CIT vs. Holcim Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR (Del.) 282. Relevant portion of the judgment in McDonalds India Pvt. Ltd.(supra) reads:- "8. The decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (Supra) is significant and does answer the question in issue. Thi…

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Briggs Trading Co, P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2136/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Dalpat Shah & Mr. B.S. SharmaFor Respondent: Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…ioner of Income Tax vs. McDonalds India Pvt. Ltd., ITA 725/2018 decided on 22nd October, 2018 cannot exceed the exempt income of that year. This decision follows the ratio and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) and the earlier judgments of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 and_CIT vs. Holcim Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR (Del.) 282. Relevant portion of the judgment in McDonalds India Pvt. Ltd.(supra) reads:- "8. The decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (Supra) is significant and does answer the question in issue. Th…

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

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 I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/s Birla Corporati…

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 840/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Two Effective Issues In The Various Grounds Before Us Which Are Summed Up As Under:- (I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,98,50,208/- As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Alleged Bogus Loss In Share Trading & In F&O Segment. (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.11,58,944/- As Made By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 250

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [PAN : AADCS4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue by : Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement:…

Crisil Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 9(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 1114/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)

…of the Rules, without recording his satisfaction and therefore on this ground itself, the additional disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is liable to be deleted and placed reliance on the following case law: -.  Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CIT [(2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC)]  Wanbury Limited v. DCIT [ITA No.2587 of 2019 dated 25 April 2022 (Mumbai Tribunal)] Page No. 60 ITA.NO. 7603/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) ITA.NO. 1180/MUM/2014 (A.Y: 2009-10) & other 6 appeals relating to M/s. Crisil Limited 51. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that only those investments which have yielded…

Crisil Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 1564/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)

…of the Rules, without recording his satisfaction and therefore on this ground itself, the additional disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is liable to be deleted and placed reliance on the following case law: -.  Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CIT [(2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC)]  Wanbury Limited v. DCIT [ITA No.2587 of 2019 dated 25 April 2022 (Mumbai Tribunal)] Page No. 60 ITA.NO. 7603/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) ITA.NO. 1180/MUM/2014 (A.Y: 2009-10) & other 6 appeals relating to M/s. Crisil Limited 51. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that only those investments which have yielded…

Crisil Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 7603/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)

…of the Rules, without recording his satisfaction and therefore on this ground itself, the additional disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is liable to be deleted and placed reliance on the following case law: -.  Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CIT [(2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC)]  Wanbury Limited v. DCIT [ITA No.2587 of 2019 dated 25 April 2022 (Mumbai Tribunal)] Page No. 60 ITA.NO. 7603/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) ITA.NO. 1180/MUM/2014 (A.Y: 2009-10) & other 6 appeals relating to M/s. Crisil Limited 51. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that only those investments which have yielded…

ACIT, Cir-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bank of India, Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed and appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1228/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm M/S Bank Of India Acit, Circle 2(1)(1) Room No.575, 5Th Floor, C5 Block Star House, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb0472C M/S Bank Of India Acit, Circle 2(1)(1) C5 Block Star House, Room No.575, 5Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Bandra East, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr . C Naresh Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Deshmukh Cit Dr & Shri P D Chougule, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 3/7/2023 & 08.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2023

For Appellant: Mr . C Naresh CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Deshmukh CIT DR and Shri P D Chougule, Addl
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 254

…t from the case at hand, however, no submissions have been made with respect to the said 'distinguishing facts'. On the contrary, it is noted that the Supreme Court has held in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 154/254 Taxman 325/402 ITR 640 that in cases where the main purpose for investing in shares was to hold the same as stock-in-trade, the expenditure incurred by the Respondent shall be permissible to be deducted from its gross income. The relevant paragraph of the judgment of the Supreme Court reads as under : "…40 It is to be kept in mind that in those cases where shares are…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed and appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1094/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm M/S Bank Of India Acit, Circle 2(1)(1) Room No.575, 5Th Floor, C5 Block Star House, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb0472C M/S Bank Of India Acit, Circle 2(1)(1) C5 Block Star House, Room No.575, 5Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Bandra East, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr . C Naresh Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Deshmukh Cit Dr & Shri P D Chougule, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 3/7/2023 & 08.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2023

For Appellant: Mr . C Naresh CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Deshmukh CIT DR and Shri P D Chougule, Addl
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 254

…t from the case at hand, however, no submissions have been made with respect to the said 'distinguishing facts'. On the contrary, it is noted that the Supreme Court has held in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 154/254 Taxman 325/402 ITR 640 that in cases where the main purpose for investing in shares was to hold the same as stock-in-trade, the expenditure incurred by the Respondent shall be permissible to be deducted from its gross income. The relevant paragraph of the judgment of the Supreme Court reads as under : "…40 It is to be kept in mind that in those cases where shares are…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Alpha G. Corp. Development Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue being devoid of merit is dismissed

ITA 6049/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. Debesh Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sanjay Kumar &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…AO was not in accordance with the settled position of law. He pointed out that the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del) has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 15 SCC 523 wherein it is held that the expression “expenditure incurred” in section 14A means “actual expenditure and not to some imagined expenditure”. Therefore, if no expenditure is incurred in relation to the exempt income, no disallowance can be made. This squarely applies to 6 the assessee’s case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further added that if an expe…