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 367,368 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 Cir 4(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hathway Cable & Datacom Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2229/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Cit, Circle-4(2)(1) Hathway Cable & Datacom Ltd. 4Th Floor, Rahejas Corner Of Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mainavenue & V. P. Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Shri Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

…xpenditure related to the earning of the income is to be allowed and the expenditure pertaining to earning of exempt income has to be disallowed. The ld. DR contended that the ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of the Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [201] 402 ITR 640 (SC) where the Hon'ble Apex Court has not passed any speaking order on the said issue. The ld. DR relied on the order of the A.O. 9. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR for short) for the assessee relied on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s case for earlier years and subsequent year and also relied on the decision of the ld.…

ACIT, Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2796/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 801ASection 80I

…tted an alternate computation of disallowance u/s. 14A considering only those investments on which dividend was received during the year including investments in subsidiaries in view of the Supreme Court decision in case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. reported in 402 ITR 640 and excluding interest expenses. The disallowance u/s. 14A as per the above working was computed at Rs. 14,08,17,019/-. 6. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish details as per the provisions of section 14A and Rule 8D in response to which the assessee had made submissions vide its letter dated 12.08.2019.…

Reliance Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 14(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2590/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 801ASection 80I

…tted an alternate computation of disallowance u/s. 14A considering only those investments on which dividend was received during the year including investments in subsidiaries in view of the Supreme Court decision in case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. reported in 402 ITR 640 and excluding interest expenses. The disallowance u/s. 14A as per the above working was computed at Rs. 14,08,17,019/-. 6. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish details as per the provisions of section 14A and Rule 8D in response to which the assessee had made submissions vide its letter dated 12.08.2019.…

Bimal Roy Soni, J L N Marg vs. DCIT, Circle - 1, Jaipur, Statue Circle

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 240/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 254

…extent of exempt income of Rs. 1906087/- in view of the ITAT decision in assessee’s case in ITA No. 308/JP/2018 wherein the Hon’ble ITAT relying upon and following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited vs. CIT, New Delhi [402 ITR 640] directed the AO to disallow the interest as per the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.” 3. In ITA No. 240/JP/2022, the assessee has taken sole ground in this appeal; ““1. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at National Faceless Appeal Centre, has erred in law and on facts in not directing the learned Assessing Officer to modif…

Bimal Roy Soni, J L N Marg vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur, N.C.R. Building

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 239/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 254

…extent of exempt income of Rs. 1906087/- in view of the ITAT decision in assessee’s case in ITA No. 308/JP/2018 wherein the Hon’ble ITAT relying upon and following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited vs. CIT, New Delhi [402 ITR 640] directed the AO to disallow the interest as per the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.” 3. In ITA No. 240/JP/2022, the assessee has taken sole ground in this appeal; ““1. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at National Faceless Appeal Centre, has erred in law and on facts in not directing the learned Assessing Officer to modif…

Macrotech Deveopers Limited (Sucessor to Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-7(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer and assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2040/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm M/S. Macrotech Developers Limited (Successor Of Shreeniwas Cotton Dcit, Cc-7(3) Mills Ltd) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Chamber, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Macrotech Developers Limited (Successor Of Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd) Dcit, Cc-7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chamber, Cawasji Patel Street, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Fort Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl1490J Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth Revenue By : Shri Asif Karmali

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JM M/s. Macrotech Developers Limited (Successor of Shreeniwas Cotton DCIT, CC-7(3) Mills Ltd) 412, 4th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Chamber, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s. Macrotech Developers Limited (Successor of Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd) DCIT, CC-7(3) 412, 4th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chamber, Cawasji Patel Street, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Fort Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (R…

Shri Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Korba, Korba(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

ITA 94/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 68

…ns of Section 14A(2) and (3) read with Rule 8D of the Rules or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing, would become applicable.” Also, a similar view haa been taken by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). In the case before us it is a matter of fact borne from the record that though the A.O had discussed at length the rationale behind introduction of Sec.14A and Rule 8D that contemplates the mechanism for computing the 37 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range, Korba ITA Nos. 93 & 94 /RPR/2017 disallowance und…

Shri Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Korba, Korba(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

ITA 93/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 68

…ns of Section 14A(2) and (3) read with Rule 8D of the Rules or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing, would become applicable.” Also, a similar view haa been taken by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). In the case before us it is a matter of fact borne from the record that though the A.O had discussed at length the rationale behind introduction of Sec.14A and Rule 8D that contemplates the mechanism for computing the 37 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range, Korba ITA Nos. 93 & 94 /RPR/2017 disallowance und…

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Forbes & Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4493/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr.Ketan Ved & Mr.AbdulkadirFor Respondent: Mr, Ankush Kapoor, CIT &
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 35A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHIR PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4493/Mum/2017 (A.Y:2013-14) DCIT – 1(1)(2) Vs. Forbes &Company Ltd 579, Aayakar Bhawan, Forbes Bldg, Charanjit MK Road, Rai Marg – 1, Fort, Mumbai -400020. Mumbai – 400001. PAN/GIR No. : AAACF1765A Appellant .. Respondent ITA No. 1682/Mum/2021 (A.Y:2016-17) Forbes & Company Ltd Vs. DCIT – 1(1)(2) Forbes Bldg, Charanjit 579, Aayakar Bhawan, Rai Marg – 1, Fort, MK Road, Mumbai –400001. Mumbai 400020. PAN/GIR No. : AAACF1765A Appellant .. Respondent Revenue by : Mr,…

DCIT - 1 (1) (2), Mumbai vs. Forbes & Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1002/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr.Ketan Ved & Mr.AbdulkadirFor Respondent: Mr, Ankush Kapoor, CIT &
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 35A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHIR PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4493/Mum/2017 (A.Y:2013-14) DCIT – 1(1)(2) Vs. Forbes &Company Ltd 579, Aayakar Bhawan, Forbes Bldg, Charanjit MK Road, Rai Marg – 1, Fort, Mumbai -400020. Mumbai – 400001. PAN/GIR No. : AAACF1765A Appellant .. Respondent ITA No. 1682/Mum/2021 (A.Y:2016-17) Forbes & Company Ltd Vs. DCIT – 1(1)(2) Forbes Bldg, Charanjit 579, Aayakar Bhawan, Rai Marg – 1, Fort, MK Road, Mumbai –400001. Mumbai 400020. PAN/GIR No. : AAACF1765A Appellant .. Respondent Revenue by : Mr,…

Quest Global Engineering Services Private :Limited, Belagavi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Belagavi

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

ITA 279/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No.279/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 92C

…IT(TP)A No.279/Bang/2022 M/s. QuEST Global Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Belagavi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.279/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 QuEST Global Engineering Services Private Limited No.437/A, Plot No.2, AEQUS Special Economic Zone Hattargi Village Vs. ACIT Circle-2 Hukkeri Taluk Belagavi Belagavi 591 245 PAN NO : AAACQ3563F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.01.2023 D…

ACIT, Circle- 7(1), New Delhi vs. Dlf Homes Developers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5705/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and ShriFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 14(3)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 14A(3)Section 8D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.5703, 5704 & 5705/DEL/2019 Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 ACIT, v. DLF Homes Developers Ltd., Circle-7(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AACCD0037H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CA Respondent by: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 22 02 2023 Date of pronouncement: 07 03 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeals have been filed by the Revenue ag…

ACIT, Circle- 7(1), New Delhi vs. Dlf Homes Developers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5704/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and ShriFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 14(3)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 14A(3)Section 8D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.5703, 5704 & 5705/DEL/2019 Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 ACIT, v. DLF Homes Developers Ltd., Circle-7(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AACCD0037H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CA Respondent by: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 22 02 2023 Date of pronouncement: 07 03 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeals have been filed by the Revenue ag…

ACIT, Circle- 7(1), New Delhi vs. Dlf Homes Developers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5703/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and ShriFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 14(3)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 14A(3)Section 8D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.5703, 5704 & 5705/DEL/2019 Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 ACIT, v. DLF Homes Developers Ltd., Circle-7(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AACCD0037H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CA Respondent by: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 22 02 2023 Date of pronouncement: 07 03 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeals have been filed by the Revenue ag…

M/S Visaria Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 4 (2), Mumbai

ITA 356/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 14A

…00/-. 8. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of PCIT vs. Punjab National Bank (2022) 140 taxmann.com 131 (Delhi) while deciding the identical issue and by discussing the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 402 ITR 640 (SC) held that share held by the assessee as stock in trade and not as investment are not to be included for the purpose of computation of disallowance under section 14A as main purpose was to treat in those shares and earn profit therefrom. In other words, expenditure could not be disallowed in case of share held by the assessee company as stock…

Holtec Consulting Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range - 4, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 485/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 254

…addressing the various contentions raised by the appellant vide submissions placed on record. 1.7 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by holding the disallowance solely based on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) without taking into account the submission providing detailed arguments regarding non-applicability of the aforesaid judgment, to the facts of the case. 1.8 The Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Ld. AO have erred in passing order by ignoring the various judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant. 2. All the above grounds are independent and…

M/S Tata Global Beverages Limited, Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1899/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'सी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री संजय शमाा, न्याधयक सदस्य के समक्ष Before DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited.........................Appellant [PAN: AABCT 0602 K] Vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Kolkata.....................................Respondent I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited.........................Appellant [PAN: AABCT 0602 K] Vs. D…

M/S Tata Global Beverages Limited, Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1854/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'सी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री संजय शमाा, न्याधयक सदस्य के समक्ष Before DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited.........................Appellant [PAN: AABCT 0602 K] Vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Kolkata.....................................Respondent I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited.........................Appellant [PAN: AABCT 0602 K] Vs. D…

Uday Punj (HUF), New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Circle-11, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 8117/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Uday Punj (Huf) Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chimes -55, Sultanpur Farms Circle-11, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaahu0518H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…6 claimed by the Assessee on the investment which have yielded the exempt income. It was submitted that the ld Revisionary Authority was apprised all these questions of fact and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) and other relevant laws but impugned order was passed. The ld AR has relied on the following judgments in support of its contention;- i. CIT-Delhi-IV Vs. DLF Ltd (2013 31 taxmann.com 158 (Delhi) ii. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (2000) 109 Taxmann 66 (SC) iii. ETT Ltd Vs. CIT (2019) 112 taxmann.com 321 (Delhi-Trib.) iv. CIT Bangalore V…

Computer Age Managament Services, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ltu-2, Chennai

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

ITA 933/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Lalith Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…exempt income at Rs.11.47 lakhs as against which he himself computed the disallowance of expenses under Rule 8D(2) at Rs.34,08,342/-. This issue is no res integra now and settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., vs. CIT, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC), wherein it is held that the disallowance under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules is to be restricted to the extent of exempt income. But in the present case, the assessee has suo- motto disallowed a sum of Rs.34,08,342/- which is more than the exempt income. Hence, we restrict the disallowance at Rs.34,08,342/- and delete the balance addition…