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 367,296 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

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2450/MUM/2022[208-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 43BSection 92C

…1 ITA 2450 & 2451/Mum/2022 WNS Global Services Pvt Ltd THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.2450 & 2451/Mum/2022 (Assessment year 2018-2019 & 2017-18) WNS GLOBAL SERVICES vs Assistant Commissioner of Income- PRIVATE LIMITED tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan PL.10/11, GATE NO.4, GODREJ BOYCE COMPLEX, M.K. Road, Mumbai FIRSHANAGAR, L.B.S. MARG VIKHROLI (WEST), MUMBAI PAN : AAACW2598L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Mr. Porus Kaka, Manish Kanth Department represented by Smt.So…

Tech Mahindra Business Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1256/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1256/मुं/ 2022 (िन.व.2017-18) Tech Mahindra Business Services Limited. Ground Floor, Spectrum Towers, Mindspace, Chincholi Bunder Link Road, Malad West, Mumbai – 400 064. Pan: Aabch-8136-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 13(3)(2), Room No.229, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D,Mistri, Sr. Advocate With Shri Harsh Kapadia, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30/03/2022, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Solitary Ground Assailing Disallowance Made U/S. 14A Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) R.W. Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (In Short ‘The Rules’) Amounting To Rs.80,08,567/-. The Assessee Vide Application Dated 13/09/2022 Has Raised An Additional Ground

For Appellant: Shri J.D,Mistri, Sr. Advocate with Shri Harsh Kapadia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, Sr.AR
Section 14A

…e Assessing Officer has not objected to the theory of apportionment. The primary objection of the Assessing Officer is assignment of weights / percentage of allocation of various factors. It is pertinent to mention here that in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC) the Hon’ble Apex Court approving the principle of apportionment of expenses, held that the said principle is engrained in section 14A of the Act . The ld.Counsel for the assessee has pointed that the Assessing Officer has made specific reference to overhead expenditure viz. travelling expenses -Rs.2.94 cores. He pointed that out of total tra…

Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd (in Respect of M.S, Icici Ltd Merged With M.S, Icici Bank Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8435/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.8435 /मुं/2010("न.व. 2003-04) The Dy.Commissioner Of Income-Tax ,Cir. 3(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Icici Bank Limited, Icici Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla-Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai 400 051. Pan: Aaaci-1195-H .....""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 23Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 80M

…ubmitted that the issue in ground No.4, 5 and 7 of appeal relates to disallowance of expenditure u/s. 14A for earning income exempt from tax. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, 402 ITR 640, has held that doctrine of apportionment would apply in respect of interest expenditure. He submitted that the law laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340(Bom) and CIT vs.HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom) is not a good law. He vehemently argued that the interest expenditure should be…

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8420/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.8435 /मुं/2010("न.व. 2003-04) The Dy.Commissioner Of Income-Tax ,Cir. 3(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Icici Bank Limited, Icici Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla-Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai 400 051. Pan: Aaaci-1195-H .....""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 23Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 80M

…ubmitted that the issue in ground No.4, 5 and 7 of appeal relates to disallowance of expenditure u/s. 14A for earning income exempt from tax. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, 402 ITR 640, has held that doctrine of apportionment would apply in respect of interest expenditure. He submitted that the law laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340(Bom) and CIT vs.HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom) is not a good law. He vehemently argued that the interest expenditure should be…

Shri. Pollamreddy Sreedhar Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 429/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)

…ntion of the assessee has to be examined by the AO as to whether exempted income earned by the assessee or not. The AO shall decide the issue, keeping in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Max Opp Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC) and also the decision of Special Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. reported in 165 ITD 27. Pollam Reddy Shreedhar Reddy, Bangalore Page 15 of 16 10. Next argument of assessee’s counsel is that when both interest free and interest-bearing funds are available with the assessee, it was to be presumed that investment in…

DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 7553/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

…find that during the year assessee traded in mutual funds worth ₹ 1545.84 crores. The assessee has not explained source of investment in those mutual funds. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. reported in 402 ITR 640(SC) the expenditure on assets which may yield exempt income as well as taxable income, need to be apportioned towards both the exempted and non- exempted income. Thus, the certain interest expenditure towards investment in mutual fund clearly needs to be disallowed, which the assessee has not considered in its suo-motu disallowance. No such break…

Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 6116/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

…find that during the year assessee traded in mutual funds worth ₹ 1545.84 crores. The assessee has not explained source of investment in those mutual funds. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. reported in 402 ITR 640(SC) the expenditure on assets which may yield exempt income as well as taxable income, need to be apportioned towards both the exempted and non- exempted income. Thus, the certain interest expenditure towards investment in mutual fund clearly needs to be disallowed, which the assessee has not considered in its suo-motu disallowance. No such break…

Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 547/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

…find that during the year assessee traded in mutual funds worth ₹ 1545.84 crores. The assessee has not explained source of investment in those mutual funds. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. reported in 402 ITR 640(SC) the expenditure on assets which may yield exempt income as well as taxable income, need to be apportioned towards both the exempted and non- exempted income. Thus, the certain interest expenditure towards investment in mutual fund clearly needs to be disallowed, which the assessee has not considered in its suo-motu disallowance. No such break…

ACIT (OSD), Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 133/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

…find that during the year assessee traded in mutual funds worth ₹ 1545.84 crores. The assessee has not explained source of investment in those mutual funds. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. reported in 402 ITR 640(SC) the expenditure on assets which may yield exempt income as well as taxable income, need to be apportioned towards both the exempted and non- exempted income. Thus, the certain interest expenditure towards investment in mutual fund clearly needs to be disallowed, which the assessee has not considered in its suo-motu disallowance. No such break…

Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 7856/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

…find that during the year assessee traded in mutual funds worth ₹ 1545.84 crores. The assessee has not explained source of investment in those mutual funds. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. reported in 402 ITR 640(SC) the expenditure on assets which may yield exempt income as well as taxable income, need to be apportioned towards both the exempted and non- exempted income. Thus, the certain interest expenditure towards investment in mutual fund clearly needs to be disallowed, which the assessee has not considered in its suo-motu disallowance. No such break…

ACIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 5202/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

…find that during the year assessee traded in mutual funds worth ₹ 1545.84 crores. The assessee has not explained source of investment in those mutual funds. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. reported in 402 ITR 640(SC) the expenditure on assets which may yield exempt income as well as taxable income, need to be apportioned towards both the exempted and non- exempted income. Thus, the certain interest expenditure towards investment in mutual fund clearly needs to be disallowed, which the assessee has not considered in its suo-motu disallowance. No such break…

Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 4796/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: PendingITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

…find that during the year assessee traded in mutual funds worth ₹ 1545.84 crores. The assessee has not explained source of investment in those mutual funds. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. reported in 402 ITR 640(SC) the expenditure on assets which may yield exempt income as well as taxable income, need to be apportioned towards both the exempted and non- exempted income. Thus, the certain interest expenditure towards investment in mutual fund clearly needs to be disallowed, which the assessee has not considered in its suo-motu disallowance. No such break…

M/S Vishal Diamonds Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2790/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blem/S. Vishal Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer – 5(3)(1) Mumbai 11Th Floor, The Plaza Hughes Road, 55 Gamdevi, Mumbai - 400007 Pan: Aaacv2799Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Vishal Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., vs. Income Tax Officer – 5(3)(1) Mumbai 11th Floor, The Plaza Hughes Road, 55 Gamdevi, Mumbai - 400007 PAN: AAACV2799Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Hariom Tulsiyan Department Represented by : Vranda U. Matkari Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 18.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 12.07.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned C…

Dcdc Health Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 9525/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41

…ad with rule 8D without appreciating the facts that only a small part was used for investment in subsidiary company. 2.4 That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in applying the ratio held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640, without appreciating the facts of the Appellant. 2.5 That the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that disallowance under section 14A on identical issue and facts was decided (by him) in favour of the appellant in AY 2015-16 i.e. immediately preceding AY, where the subject investment fetched exempt income. 3. That the above grounds of…

M/S Manipal Technologies Limited, Udupi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Udupi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 325/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e 8D(2)(iii), the disallowance has been confirmed at Rs.10,80,499/- being 0.5% of Rs.21,60,99,785/-, which in our view is not correct. We draw reference to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., Vs. CIT reported in (2018) 91 Taxmann.com 154, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 40 and 41 observed as under:- "40) We note from the facts in the State Bank of Patiala cases that the AO, while passing the assessment order, had already restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in Rule 8D of the Rules and hold…

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 3501/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/Ms. Ayushi ModaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, DR
Section 14ASection 251

…e above decisions, the following judicial precedents, after considering the decision of Hon'ble judicial precedents, after considering the decision of Hon'ble judicial precedents, after considering the decision of Hon'ble SC in Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CIT (402 ITR 640) have SC in Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CIT (402 ITR 640) have SC in Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CIT (402 ITR 640) have held that no 144 disallowance is warranted with respect to held that no 144 disallowance is warranted with respect to held that no 144 disallowance is warranted with respect to investments held as investments held as stock-in-trad…

DCIT-2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 3239/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/Ms. Ayushi ModaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, DR
Section 14ASection 251

…e above decisions, the following judicial precedents, after considering the decision of Hon'ble judicial precedents, after considering the decision of Hon'ble judicial precedents, after considering the decision of Hon'ble SC in Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CIT (402 ITR 640) have SC in Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CIT (402 ITR 640) have SC in Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CIT (402 ITR 640) have held that no 144 disallowance is warranted with respect to held that no 144 disallowance is warranted with respect to held that no 144 disallowance is warranted with respect to investments held as investments held as stock-in-trad…

Living Media India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-15(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the consequences shall follow

ITA 7594/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Living Media India Ltd. Vs. Acit, K-9, Connaught Circus, Circle-15(2), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan : Aaacl0087H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. G. S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Living Media India ltd. Vs. ACIT, K-9, Connaught Circus, Circle-15(2), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi PAN : AAACL0087H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Shailesh Gupta, CA Revenue by Ms. Garima Sharma, Sr. DR & Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 01.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 30.06.2023 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The appeal has been filed by the Assessee against order dated 11.09.2018 in appeal no. 86/17-18 in…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 929/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.929/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2012-13) Bank Of India, 8Th Floor, Taxation Department, Star House, C-5, G.Block, Badra –Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 Pan: Aaacb-0472-C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax 2(1)(1),Mumbai. Mumbai. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं.973/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2012-13) The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax 2(1)(1),Mumbai. Mumbai. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Bank Of India, 8Th Floor, Taxation Department, Star House, C-5, G.Block, Badra –Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 Pan: Aaacb-0472-C ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri C. Naresh Revenue By : Shri H.N.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2023

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri H.N.Singh, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 14ASection 90

…aw is now settled and that in the case of Banks where the shares are held as “stock- in-trade” no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is warranted. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 402 ITR 640(SC)/ 91 taxmann.com 154. (ii) South India Bank Ltd. vs.CIT, 130 taxamann.com 178 (SC) (iii) PCIT vs. Punjab & Sind Bank in ITA No.904/2019 decided on 16/10/2019 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. (IV) PCIT vs. PNB Housing Finance Ltd., 146 taxmann.com 445(Del) (v) Union Bank of India vs. DCIT in ITA No.1804/Mum/2018 decided On 27/11/2020. 4.2 In resp…

DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jaypee Infra Ventures (A Private Company With Unlimited Liability), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6092/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Dcit, Vs Jaypee Infra Ventures (A Private Circle-13(2), Company With Unlimited Liability), New Delhi. Sector-128, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201304. Pan-Aaccj5628G Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri V.K.Garg, Adv. & Praveen Kumar, Ca Respondent By Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-5, New Delhi Dated 26.04.2019. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “H” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2013-14] DCIT, vs Jaypee Infra Ventures (A Private Circle-13(2), Company with unlimited Liability), New Delhi. Sector-128, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201304. PAN-AACCJ5628G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by S/Shri V.K.Garg, Adv. & Praveen Kumar, CA Respondent by Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement 20.06.2023 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2013-14 is directed a…