Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

M/S Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai-400021 vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is disposed off as being partly allowed

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, F&A Department, 3rd Floor, Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai - 400021 [PAN: AAACL0582H] …………… Appellant Vs DCIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai, R. No. 608, 6th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………. Respondent Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 ACIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai, Room No. 674, 6th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 ……………… Appellant M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India, Vs Central Office, F&A Department, 3rd Floor, Yogakshema,…

Shri Rajiv Rameshchander Babbar, Mumbai vs. ITO -16(1)(5), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1528/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Rajiv Rameshchander बिधम/ Vs. Ito-16(1)(5) Babbar Room No. 439, Aayakar Flat No. 1, Amar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Niletan, J. B. Nagar, Mumbai-400020. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpb9241M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kiran Mehta Revenue By: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-04, Mumbai Dated 17.01.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Three Effective Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: - 1) “In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Allowing Loss Of Rs. 41,64,684/- Incurred By The Appellant In Trading In Shares Of M/S Shaleen Textiles & Claimed As Business Share Trading Loss. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing The Above Loss Relying, Inter-Alia, On The Decision Of Hon. Bombay Hc In The Case Of Shri Sanjay Jain While Completely Ignoring The Submissions Made By The Appellant Distinguishing The Said Case. The Learned Cit(A) Also Erred In Relying On Various Case Laws Which Were Distinguishable While Ignoring The Case Law Cited Which Were Applicable To The Case Of The Appellant.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1528/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Rajiv Rameshchander बिधम/ Vs. ITO-16(1)(5) Babbar Room No. 439, Aayakar Flat No. 1, Amar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Niletan, J. B. Nagar, Mumbai-400020. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABPB9241M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Kiran Mehta Revenue by: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 30/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 31/01/2023 आदेश / O R D…

ITO 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

…sed by the CIT(A) in appeal for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 12. We note that while deciding a batch of Special Leave Petitions filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 12.02.2018, passed in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640, has held as under: "36. There is yet another aspect which still needs to be looked into. What happens when the shares are held as 'stock-in-trade' and not as 'investment, particularly, by the banks? On this specific aspect, CBDT has issued circular No. 18/2015 dated November 02, 2015. 37. This Circular has already been reproduced in Para 19 abov…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

…sed by the CIT(A) in appeal for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 20. We note that while deciding a batch of Special Leave Petitions filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 12.02.2018, passed in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640, has held as that earning of exempt dividend income in respect of shares held as stock-in-trade, though incidental or by quirk of fate, triggers the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. Therefore, based upon the theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non- taxable income as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT…

Vivek Mehrotra, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleshri Vivek Mehrotra V. Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai -400020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aahpm4127B (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) V. Shri Vivek Mehrotra Central Range - 3 Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor Mumbai -400020 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aahpm4127B (Appellant) (Respondent)

…we observe that Ld.CIT(A) has granted relief where the investment yielding exempt income was held as stock in trade. However, this finding of the Ld.CIT(A) is not as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd., [402 ITR 640]. At the same time, we observe that in previous Assessment Years i.e. A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 the Coordinate Bench has remitted this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to restrict the disallowance to those 34 ITA NO.2359 & 2170/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2015-16) Shri Vivek Mehrotra investments which have actually yielded tax…

Jaikishan Bhagchandka, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(2), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is allowed

…Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant that the Assessing Officer was under obligation to record satisfaction before invoking provisions of Section 14A of the Act. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. Vs CIT, Delhi : 402 ITR 640 (SC), held as under: 5 ITA. No. 2992//Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 “41. Having regard to the language of Section 14A(2) of the Act, read with Rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowance…

Asst CIT RG 10(3)(2), Thane vs. Pantaloon Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

…er is not satisfied on an objective criteria in the context of its accounts, that suo motu disallowance claimed by the assessee is not proper. 12. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 154/254 Taxman 325/402 ITR 640 while upholding the view of the Delhi High Court has held that the Assessing Officer needs to record his non-satisfaction having regard to the sou motu disallowances claimed by the assessee in the context of its accounts. It is only thereafter, the occasion to apply rule 8D of the Rules for apportionment of expenses can arise. 13. In the present…

Pil Industries, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

…er is not satisfied on an objective criteria in the context of its accounts, that suo motu disallowance claimed by the assessee is not proper. 12. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 154/254 Taxman 325/402 ITR 640 while upholding the view of the Delhi High Court has held that the Assessing Officer needs to record his non-satisfaction having regard to the sou motu disallowances claimed by the assessee in the context of its accounts. It is only thereafter, the occasion to apply rule 8D of the Rules for apportionment of expenses can arise. 13. In the present…

Asst CIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Pantaloon Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

…er is not satisfied on an objective criteria in the context of its accounts, that suo motu disallowance claimed by the assessee is not proper. 12. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 154/254 Taxman 325/402 ITR 640 while upholding the view of the Delhi High Court has held that the Assessing Officer needs to record his non-satisfaction having regard to the sou motu disallowances claimed by the assessee in the context of its accounts. It is only thereafter, the occasion to apply rule 8D of the Rules for apportionment of expenses can arise. 13. In the present…