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

M/S Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2478/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yashwant Kumar Bhaskar, D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 44A

…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…

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

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2470/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yashwant Kumar Bhaskar, D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 44A

…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…

M/S Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Limited (Erstwhile Edelweiss Agri Value Chain Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2469/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yashwant Kumar Bhaskar, D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 44A

…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…

M/S Edelweiss Financial Services Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2468/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yashwant Kumar Bhaskar, D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 44A

…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…

M/S Edelweiss Financial Services Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2467/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yashwant Kumar Bhaskar, D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 44A

…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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Century Real Estate Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 740/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar, D.R

…indivisible business the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(ii) are attracted? 3. Tile CIT(A) erred in not following the decision of the Punjab-and Haryana High Court in Avon Cycles Limited (11 ITR-OL-381) affirmed by the Supreme Court in M/s Maxopp Investments Limited 402 ITR 640 (SC). 4. The CIT(A) erred in not distinguishing the law applicable for investments in stock in trade as laid out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Maxopp Investments Ltd 402 ITR 640 (SC). 5. The CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the decision in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd 402 ITR 640 makes it clear that disal…

Century Real Estate Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 580/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar, D.R

…indivisible business the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(ii) are attracted? 3. Tile CIT(A) erred in not following the decision of the Punjab-and Haryana High Court in Avon Cycles Limited (11 ITR-OL-381) affirmed by the Supreme Court in M/s Maxopp Investments Limited 402 ITR 640 (SC). 4. The CIT(A) erred in not distinguishing the law applicable for investments in stock in trade as laid out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Maxopp Investments Ltd 402 ITR 640 (SC). 5. The CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the decision in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd 402 ITR 640 makes it clear that disal…

Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 404/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 404/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sasken Technologies Ltd., (Formerly Known As The Deputy Sasken Communication Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 139/25, Domlur Circle – 6(1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs6424R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 15-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2017 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General:- The Learned Ao & The Drp Erred In Passing The Order / Directions In The Manner Passed By Them. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 133(6)Section 2(24)Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 404/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Sasken Technologies Ltd., (Formerly known as The Deputy Sasken Communication Commissioner of Technologies Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 139/25, Domlur Circle – 6(1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. PAN: AAECS6424R APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee by CA : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT Revenue by DR ITAT Date of Hearing : 15-11-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 ORDER PER BEENA…

Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 2 (3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 217/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
Section 115Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 80G

…ntrol over the same or for the purpose of strategic investments would also have to be considered for the purpose of working out the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640(SC). However, the same could be considered only in respect of those investments which had actually yielded exempt income to the assessee company during the year under consideration. Obviously, the foreign dividend income which is chargeable to tax would be outside the purview of application of provisions of section 14A of the Act. We find that th…

DCIT Cent. Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. M/S 63 Moon Technologies India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1515/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: M/s. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1515/Mum./2022 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–8(3), Mumbai v/s M/s. 63 Moon Technologies India Ltd. FT Tower, CTS no.256–257, Suren Road …………….Respondent Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 093 PAN – AAACF5737C Assessee by : Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue by : M/s. Vatsalaa Jha Date of Hearing – 06/09/2022 Date of Order – 21/11/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has…

M/S. Coromandel Sugars Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3391/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3390 & 3391/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2013 - 14 Coromandel Sugars Ltd., The Dcit, No.93, Santhome High Road, Vs. Corporate Circle -1(2), R.A. Puram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaaci 2702G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4(I/C), Chennai In Ita Nos.434 & 433/16-17/Cit(A)-4/Ays 2005-06 & 2013-14 Dated 09.09.2019. The Assessments Were Framed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) By The Acit, Company Circle Ii(3), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)

…idend income i.e., claimed by assessee as exempt and rest of the disallowance, he restricted because the investments were strategic in nature, which issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT, (2018) 402 ITR 640. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and the same is confirmed. This issue of assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No.3390/Chny/2019 is allowed and ITA No.3391/Chny/2019 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th November, 2022 at Chennai. (महावीर "सह ) (जी. मंजु…

M/S. Coromandel Sugars Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3390/CHNY/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3390 & 3391/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2013 - 14 Coromandel Sugars Ltd., The Dcit, No.93, Santhome High Road, Vs. Corporate Circle -1(2), R.A. Puram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaaci 2702G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4(I/C), Chennai In Ita Nos.434 & 433/16-17/Cit(A)-4/Ays 2005-06 & 2013-14 Dated 09.09.2019. The Assessments Were Framed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) By The Acit, Company Circle Ii(3), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)

…idend income i.e., claimed by assessee as exempt and rest of the disallowance, he restricted because the investments were strategic in nature, which issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT, (2018) 402 ITR 640. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and the same is confirmed. This issue of assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No.3390/Chny/2019 is allowed and ITA No.3391/Chny/2019 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th November, 2022 at Chennai. (महावीर "सह ) (जी. मंजु…

Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 495/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…re made by the assessee. It is submitted that in the instant case, ld. AO did not express any dis-satisfaction with the assessee’s claim of expenditure and was not entitled to invoke section 14A(2) or rule 8D(2)(iii). In Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) [Page 110 at Pages 134, 136-137 of the Compilation of Case Laws], the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as follows: “……Keeping this objective behind Section14A of the Act in mind, the said provision has to be interpreted, particularly, the word 'in relation to the income' that does not form part of total income. Considered in this hu…

Birla Corporation Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 494/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…re made by the assessee. It is submitted that in the instant case, ld. AO did not express any dis-satisfaction with the assessee’s claim of expenditure and was not entitled to invoke section 14A(2) or rule 8D(2)(iii). In Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) [Page 110 at Pages 134, 136-137 of the Compilation of Case Laws], the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as follows: “……Keeping this objective behind Section14A of the Act in mind, the said provision has to be interpreted, particularly, the word 'in relation to the income' that does not form part of total income. Considered in this hu…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 2112/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…re made by the assessee. It is submitted that in the instant case, ld. AO did not express any dis-satisfaction with the assessee’s claim of expenditure and was not entitled to invoke section 14A(2) or rule 8D(2)(iii). In Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) [Page 110 at Pages 134, 136-137 of the Compilation of Case Laws], the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as follows: “……Keeping this objective behind Section14A of the Act in mind, the said provision has to be interpreted, particularly, the word 'in relation to the income' that does not form part of total income. Considered in this hu…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 2111/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…re made by the assessee. It is submitted that in the instant case, ld. AO did not express any dis-satisfaction with the assessee’s claim of expenditure and was not entitled to invoke section 14A(2) or rule 8D(2)(iii). In Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) [Page 110 at Pages 134, 136-137 of the Compilation of Case Laws], the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as follows: “……Keeping this objective behind Section14A of the Act in mind, the said provision has to be interpreted, particularly, the word 'in relation to the income' that does not form part of total income. Considered in this hu…

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Kamarajar Port Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Ennore Port Ltd.), Chennai

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

ITA 2450/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 2450/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 14 The Dcit, Kamarajar Port Ltd., Corporate Circle – 4(2), Vs. (Formerly Known As Ennore Port Chennai – 34. Ltd.,) 4Th Floor, Super Speciality Diabetic Centre (Erstwhile Dlb Building), Rajaji Salai, Chennai -600 001. Pan: Aaace 9013G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Sudharshan, A.C.A सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai, In Ita No.30/Cit(A)-6/2016-17 Dated 18.06.2018. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 21.03.2016. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is Against Eh Order Of Cit(A) Deleting The Disallowance Of Expenses Relatable To Exempt Income Made By Ao By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter The ‘Rules’). For This, Revenue Has Raised Four Grounds Which Are Exhaustive & Argumentative & Hence, We Will Not Reproduce The Same.

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Sudharshan, A.C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…through the facts, we noticed that the CIT(A) has wrongly decided the issue on the basis investment issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in favour of Revenue and against assessee by the decision of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT. (2018) 402 ITR 640. 6. Coming to the issue that there is no exempt income earned by assessee on the equity shares, once there is no exempt income, no disallowance can be made by the AO by invoking the provisions of Rule 8D(2). To that effect, we remit the matter back to the file of the AO for the purpose of verification whether the assessee has earned any exempt in…

Ring Plus Aqua Ltd., Nashik vs. Dy CIT -CC-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1062/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1059/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1062/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1061/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ring Plus Aqua Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-8(1) 6Th Floor, Aayakar D-3/4, Stice, Sinnar Shirdi Vs. Road, Musalgaon, Nashik- Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. 422003, Maharashtra, India.

For Appellant: Shri Hitan ChandeFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 14A

…given considerable emphasis on the issue that the provisions of sec 14A rw Rule 8D cannot be invoked in respect of investments which are strategic in nature. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT reported in 402 ITR 640 has held that the dominant purpose of investment is of no consequence for applicability of provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. In view of the above discussions, with due respect to my Ld Predecessor, it is held that the decision A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 Ring Plus Aqua Ltd. rendered by him in A.Y. 2012-13 in appellant's own case cannot be foll…

Ring Plus Aqua Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1061/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1059/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1062/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1061/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ring Plus Aqua Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-8(1) 6Th Floor, Aayakar D-3/4, Stice, Sinnar Shirdi Vs. Road, Musalgaon, Nashik- Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. 422003, Maharashtra, India.

For Appellant: Shri Hitan ChandeFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 14A

…given considerable emphasis on the issue that the provisions of sec 14A rw Rule 8D cannot be invoked in respect of investments which are strategic in nature. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT reported in 402 ITR 640 has held that the dominant purpose of investment is of no consequence for applicability of provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. In view of the above discussions, with due respect to my Ld Predecessor, it is held that the decision A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 Ring Plus Aqua Ltd. rendered by him in A.Y. 2012-13 in appellant's own case cannot be foll…

Silver Spark Apparel Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1060/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1059/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1062/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1061/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ring Plus Aqua Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-8(1) 6Th Floor, Aayakar D-3/4, Stice, Sinnar Shirdi Vs. Road, Musalgaon, Nashik- Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. 422003, Maharashtra, India.

For Appellant: Shri Hitan ChandeFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 14A

…given considerable emphasis on the issue that the provisions of sec 14A rw Rule 8D cannot be invoked in respect of investments which are strategic in nature. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT reported in 402 ITR 640 has held that the dominant purpose of investment is of no consequence for applicability of provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. In view of the above discussions, with due respect to my Ld Predecessor, it is held that the decision A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 Ring Plus Aqua Ltd. rendered by him in A.Y. 2012-13 in appellant's own case cannot be foll…