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 367,359 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

M/S Business Match Services (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 12(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3284/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Business Match Services (India) Acit, Circle 12(1)(2) Private Limited Mumbai 2 Naptune Ii, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road, Vs. Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250

…n principle, yet restricted the disallowance to Rs.9,60,000/-, since the assessee had made suo moto disallowance of the same u/s. 14A of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of CIT vs Maxoop investments Ltd in 402 ITR 640 (SC), wherein it was held that disallowance u/s.14A cannot exceed the exempt income 3 M/s. Business Match Services (India) Private Limited vs. ACIT earned by the assesse for that year. The ld. CIT(A) also relied on various other decisions for the said proposition. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A)…

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Idbi Bank Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2937/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit- 3(4) V. M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1 Central Processing Unit (Tds) World Trade Center, Cuffe Parade Plot No. 82/83, Elemach Bldg Mumbai- 400005 Road No. 7, Street No. 15 Midc, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd V. Acit/Dcit-Ltu 22Nd Floor, Idbi Tower 29Th Floor, Centre No. 1 Wtc Complex, Cuffe Parade World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400005 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 18

…Further, it is not possible to exactly find out the amount of expenditure incurred to earn income which does not form part of total income. In view of the above and relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd.v/s. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC), it is requested that the addition made by the AO may kindly be upheld.” 9. On the other hand, Ld. AR of the assessee with regard to normal computation submitted that this issue is decided in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case by the Coordinate Bench in ITA.No. 3423 to 3426/Mum/2018 dated 03.09.2019. Further, with regard to Page…

Ufo Moviez India Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 8014/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ce made by the Ld. AO u/s 14A of the Act would have no legs to stand in the eyes of law. Our view is further fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Page 6 of 7 UFO Moviez India Limited vs. ITO Supreme Court in the Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC) and, hence, we direct the Ld. AO to delete the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act in the assessment. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th May, 2023. (SAKTIJIT DEY) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM…

Skg Engineering Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 23(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1293/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Skg Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Gripwel House, Block-5, Circle 23(2), Sector-C 6&7, New Delhi. Lsc Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070. Pan: Aaacs3743F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.T. Panda, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.1293/Del/2021 For Ay 2017-18 Arises Out Of The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1034916910(1) Dated 17.08.2021 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.12.2019 By The Ld. Income-Tax Officer, Circle 23(2), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’).

For Appellant: Shri A.T. Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(3)

…ules and proceeded to make disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. The disallowance made in this manner would have no legs to stand in the eyes of law. This view is further fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., 402 ITR 640. Accordingly, we direct the ld. AO to delete the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act for want of recording of satisfaction in terms of section 14A(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 3 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09.05.2023. (SAKTIJIT DEY)…

Karun Carpets (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addi. CIT Spl. Range- 05, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4299/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 Karun Carpets (P) Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 801-803, Tower-B, Spl. Range-05, Global Business Park, New Delhi. Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaack2331D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.S. Grewal, Ca; Ms Harsimran Grewal, Ca & Shri Jaspal Singh, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.4299/Del/2019 For Ay 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, New Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Appeal No.13/18-19 Dated 19.02.2019 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.11.2017 By The Ld. Income-Tax Officer, Special Range-5, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Issue On Merits To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Disallowance U/S 14A Of The Act To Rs 19,71,549/- In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Grewal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…h Rule 8D(1) of the Rules. When this is violated, then the disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act would have no legs to stand in the eyes of law. Our view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC). Hence we have no hesitation in directing the ld. AO to delete the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act. However the suo moto disallowance of expenses made by the assessee in the return of income would prevail. Hence the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. 7. In view of our aforesaid decision, the adjudication of other legal gro…

Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle-6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 420/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.420/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shriram Transport Finance Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Company Limited, Mookambika Income Tax, Complex, No. 4, Shriram House, First Corporate Circle 6(1) Floor, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aaacs7018R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. R. Mohan Reddy, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Chennai 3,Chennai Dated 31.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri B. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.420/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shriram Transport Finance Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Company Limited, Mookambika Income Tax, Complex, No. 4, Shriram House, First Corporate Circle 6(1) Floor, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. [PAN:AAACS7018R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shr…

Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Kolkatta vs. Dy CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 297/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 296 & 297/Mum/2021 (A.Ys.2011-12 To 2013-14) Essel Mining & Vs. Dy. Cit, Cc-1(4) Industries Limited 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Industry House, 18Th Building, M.K. Road, Floor, 10 Camac Street, Mumbai - 400020 Kolkata – 700017 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace6607L Appellant .. Respondent Jcit, Cc-1(4) Vs. M/S Essel Mining & R. No. 902, Pratistha Industries Limited Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Industry House, 18Th Cgo Building, Annexe, Floor, 10, Cama Street, Mumbai – 400 020 Kolkata- 700017 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace6607L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yohesh Thar &For Respondent: Biswanath Das
Section 132(1)Section 14ASection 153ASection 153C

…) Ltd (101 taxmann.com 167) P a g e | 5 ITA No.1022 & 1549/Mum/2018 296 & 297/Mum/2021 Essel Mining & industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CC-1(4) (Delhi HC); PCIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P) Ltd [2019] 112 taxmann.com 322 (SC); Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (402 ITR 640) (SC). On the other hand, the ld. D.R supported the order of lower authorities. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. After considering the decision of various court’s it is settled law that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned during the year under consideration. We have perused the decision of the IT…

Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Kolkatta vs. Dy CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 296/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 296 & 297/Mum/2021 (A.Ys.2011-12 To 2013-14) Essel Mining & Vs. Dy. Cit, Cc-1(4) Industries Limited 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Industry House, 18Th Building, M.K. Road, Floor, 10 Camac Street, Mumbai - 400020 Kolkata – 700017 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace6607L Appellant .. Respondent Jcit, Cc-1(4) Vs. M/S Essel Mining & R. No. 902, Pratistha Industries Limited Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Industry House, 18Th Cgo Building, Annexe, Floor, 10, Cama Street, Mumbai – 400 020 Kolkata- 700017 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace6607L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yohesh Thar &For Respondent: Biswanath Das
Section 132(1)Section 14ASection 153ASection 153C

…) Ltd (101 taxmann.com 167) P a g e | 5 ITA No.1022 & 1549/Mum/2018 296 & 297/Mum/2021 Essel Mining & industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CC-1(4) (Delhi HC); PCIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P) Ltd [2019] 112 taxmann.com 322 (SC); Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (402 ITR 640) (SC). On the other hand, the ld. D.R supported the order of lower authorities. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. After considering the decision of various court’s it is settled law that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned during the year under consideration. We have perused the decision of the IT…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai vs. Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1549/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 296 & 297/Mum/2021 (A.Ys.2011-12 To 2013-14) Essel Mining & Vs. Dy. Cit, Cc-1(4) Industries Limited 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Industry House, 18Th Building, M.K. Road, Floor, 10 Camac Street, Mumbai - 400020 Kolkata – 700017 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace6607L Appellant .. Respondent Jcit, Cc-1(4) Vs. M/S Essel Mining & R. No. 902, Pratistha Industries Limited Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Industry House, 18Th Cgo Building, Annexe, Floor, 10, Cama Street, Mumbai – 400 020 Kolkata- 700017 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace6607L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yohesh Thar &For Respondent: Biswanath Das
Section 132(1)Section 14ASection 153ASection 153C

…) Ltd (101 taxmann.com 167) P a g e | 5 ITA No.1022 & 1549/Mum/2018 296 & 297/Mum/2021 Essel Mining & industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CC-1(4) (Delhi HC); PCIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P) Ltd [2019] 112 taxmann.com 322 (SC); Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (402 ITR 640) (SC). On the other hand, the ld. D.R supported the order of lower authorities. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. After considering the decision of various court’s it is settled law that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned during the year under consideration. We have perused the decision of the IT…

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1022/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 296 & 297/Mum/2021 (A.Ys.2011-12 To 2013-14) Essel Mining & Vs. Dy. Cit, Cc-1(4) Industries Limited 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Industry House, 18Th Building, M.K. Road, Floor, 10 Camac Street, Mumbai - 400020 Kolkata – 700017 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace6607L Appellant .. Respondent Jcit, Cc-1(4) Vs. M/S Essel Mining & R. No. 902, Pratistha Industries Limited Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Industry House, 18Th Cgo Building, Annexe, Floor, 10, Cama Street, Mumbai – 400 020 Kolkata- 700017 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace6607L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yohesh Thar &For Respondent: Biswanath Das
Section 132(1)Section 14ASection 153ASection 153C

…) Ltd (101 taxmann.com 167) P a g e | 5 ITA No.1022 & 1549/Mum/2018 296 & 297/Mum/2021 Essel Mining & industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CC-1(4) (Delhi HC); PCIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P) Ltd [2019] 112 taxmann.com 322 (SC); Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (402 ITR 640) (SC). On the other hand, the ld. D.R supported the order of lower authorities. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. After considering the decision of various court’s it is settled law that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned during the year under consideration. We have perused the decision of the IT…

Indian Herbs Specialities Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly

ITA 505/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaa No. 505/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. Indian Herbs Vs. Dcit, Specialities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-12(1), D-21, Shop No. 2, New Delhi Acharya Niketan, Mayur Vihar Phase-1, Delhi 110092 Pan : Aadci0033P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…Clause 2 of Section 14A of the Act and thus, the addition is not sustainable. In this context, cited following judgments in Godrej Boyee and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 394 ITR 449 (SC) (Para 37) and Maxopp Investment ltd. vs. CIT reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC) (Para 41) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of HT Media Ltd. vs. PCIT reported in 399 ITR 576 (Del.). 6. It was further submitted that in the balance sheet suggestion reserved and surplus and share capital to the extent of 14,55,50,389/- are shown by the investments and mutual funds were only of Rs. 10,02,41,254/- it was submitted th…

Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Vijaya Bank, Bangalore

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU “B” BENCH, BENGALURU Before Shri George George K., Judicial Member and Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member M/s. Bank of Baroda vs. Addl. CIT, LTU, (erstwhile Vijaya Bank) BMTC Building 7th Floor, Central Accounts 6th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 PAN – AAACVO3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1) vs. M/s. Bank of Baroda Room No. 561, 5th Floor (erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 PAN – AAACVO3787 (Appellant) (…

M/S Vijaya Bank, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 321/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU “B” BENCH, BENGALURU Before Shri George George K., Judicial Member and Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member M/s. Bank of Baroda vs. Addl. CIT, LTU, (erstwhile Vijaya Bank) BMTC Building 7th Floor, Central Accounts 6th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 PAN – AAACVO3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1) vs. M/s. Bank of Baroda Room No. 561, 5th Floor (erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 PAN – AAACVO3787 (Appellant) (…

M/S. Frick India Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 850/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2023AY 2010-11
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…prohibited from directly applying the computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules and make disallowance 14A of the Act. This view of oura is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment (I) Ltd. reported in 402 ITR 640. In the instant case, the ld. CIT(A) had even categorically stated that the ld. AO had not recorded any satisfaction before implementing the computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. The ld. CIT(A) however goes to record his satisfaction, which is also ignoring the books of accounts of the assessee. First of all, the statute mand…

Frick India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1083/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2023AY 2009-10
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…prohibited from directly applying the computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules and make disallowance 14A of the Act. This view of oura is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment (I) Ltd. reported in 402 ITR 640. In the instant case, the ld. CIT(A) had even categorically stated that the ld. AO had not recorded any satisfaction before implementing the computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. The ld. CIT(A) however goes to record his satisfaction, which is also ignoring the books of accounts of the assessee. First of all, the statute mand…

M/S Bec Infra Private Limited, Durg vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai

In the result ground no. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/RPR/2020[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur24 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.66/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2014-2015) M/S Bec Infra Private Limited, Vs Circle-3(1), Raipur 47, Motilal Nehru Nagar, Durg Pan No. :Aagcm 0049 N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nilesh Jain, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-Ii, Raipur, Dated 31.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Sr. Dr Submitted That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 59 Days, Which Can Be Further Extended Since The Claim Of The Assessee That The Order Was Served After 38 Days Of Delay Was Not Supported By Any Documentary Evidence. As Per Appeal Memo In Form No.36, The Date Of Service Of Communication Of The Order Was 7Th February, 2020 & The Appeal Was Filed On 08.06.2020. On This Aspect, The Ld. Ar Submitted That This Was The Covid-19 Period & The Hon’Ble Apex Court Has Already Directed To Extend The Limitation For That Period, Therefore, The Delay May Be Condoned. The Submission Of The Ld. Ar Found Satisfactory & Acceptable & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, रायपुर न्यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR श्री रविश सूद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़विया, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.66/RPR/2020 (Assessment Year: 2014-2015) M/s BEC Infra Private Limited, Vs Circle-3(1), Raipur 47, Motilal Nehru Nagar, Durg PAN No. :AAGCM 0049 N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Nilesh Jain, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR सुनिाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा की…

Heg Ltd, Mandideep vs. DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 13/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2023AY 2011-12
Section 14ASection 220(2)Section 234CSection 244A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.13/Del/2021 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) HEG Ltd. DCIT 101, Industrial Area Central Circle-31, Mandideep, Raisen Vs. New Delhi Madhya Pradesh-462046 PAN-AAACH 6184K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Mr. Tanmay Bhatnagar, Advocate Mr. Puneet Jain, CA and Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 06/04/2023 Date of Pronouncement 12/04/2023 ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH AM: 1. Both the appeals by Assessee are filed aga…

Heg Ltd., Raisen vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 31, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5907/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2023AY 2010-11
Section 14ASection 220(2)Section 234CSection 244A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.13/Del/2021 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) HEG Ltd. DCIT 101, Industrial Area Central Circle-31, Mandideep, Raisen Vs. New Delhi Madhya Pradesh-462046 PAN-AAACH 6184K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Mr. Tanmay Bhatnagar, Advocate Mr. Puneet Jain, CA and Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 06/04/2023 Date of Pronouncement 12/04/2023 ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH AM: 1. Both the appeals by Assessee are filed aga…

The Punjab Produce & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-4(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 518/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 The Punjab Produce & Assistant Commissioner Of Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-4(2), Birla Building, 4Th Floor, 9/1, Vs. Kolkata. R. N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aabct1705D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi Ladia, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e a disallowance under Rule 8D is uncalled for. He asserted that the amount of suo moto disallowance offered by the assessee is correct having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) and CIT Vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 326 ITR 1 (SC). The computation by assessee cannot be rejected on the ground that infrastructure or indirect costs have 9 The Punjab produce & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. AY 2017-18 not been included, more particularly when they in fact have been included. Investment made during the year…

M/S Edelwiss Rural & Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2471/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S Edelweiss Rural & Acit Central Circle-1(2), Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 906, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. Edelweiss House, Off Cst Road, Cgo Building Annexe, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400098. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aakcs 7311 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jitendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjeev Kashyap, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement ___/03/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Jitendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Kashyap, CIT-DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s Edelweiss Rural & ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 906, 9th floor, Old Vs. Edelweiss House, Off CST Road, CGO Building Annexe, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400098. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAKCS 7311 R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Jitendra Jain, AR Revenue by : Mr. Sanjeev Kashyap, CIT-DR : Date of Hearing 09/03/2023 : Date of pronouncement ___/03/2023 ORDER PER O…