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 367,514 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. V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Central-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2281/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

…ew of various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts and particularly the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd., (2017) 80 taxmann.com 221 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., vs. CIT, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). To this, the ld. CIT-DR has not objected. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and accordingly this common issue in all these 7 assessment years of assessee’s appeals is dismissed. 18. The next common issue in ITA Nos.2277 to 2281/Chny/2019, AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is as regards to shifting of profit to sister concern M/s. Ras…

M/S. V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Central-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2280/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

…ew of various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts and particularly the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd., (2017) 80 taxmann.com 221 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., vs. CIT, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). To this, the ld. CIT-DR has not objected. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and accordingly this common issue in all these 7 assessment years of assessee’s appeals is dismissed. 18. The next common issue in ITA Nos.2277 to 2281/Chny/2019, AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is as regards to shifting of profit to sister concern M/s. Ras…

M/S. V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Central-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2279/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

…ew of various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts and particularly the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd., (2017) 80 taxmann.com 221 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., vs. CIT, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). To this, the ld. CIT-DR has not objected. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and accordingly this common issue in all these 7 assessment years of assessee’s appeals is dismissed. 18. The next common issue in ITA Nos.2277 to 2281/Chny/2019, AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is as regards to shifting of profit to sister concern M/s. Ras…

M/S. V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Central-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2278/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

…ew of various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts and particularly the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd., (2017) 80 taxmann.com 221 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., vs. CIT, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). To this, the ld. CIT-DR has not objected. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and accordingly this common issue in all these 7 assessment years of assessee’s appeals is dismissed. 18. The next common issue in ITA Nos.2277 to 2281/Chny/2019, AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is as regards to shifting of profit to sister concern M/s. Ras…

M/S. V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Central-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2277/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

…ew of various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts and particularly the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd., (2017) 80 taxmann.com 221 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., vs. CIT, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). To this, the ld. CIT-DR has not objected. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and accordingly this common issue in all these 7 assessment years of assessee’s appeals is dismissed. 18. The next common issue in ITA Nos.2277 to 2281/Chny/2019, AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is as regards to shifting of profit to sister concern M/s. Ras…

M/S. V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Central-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2276/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

…ew of various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts and particularly the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd., (2017) 80 taxmann.com 221 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., vs. CIT, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). To this, the ld. CIT-DR has not objected. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and accordingly this common issue in all these 7 assessment years of assessee’s appeals is dismissed. 18. The next common issue in ITA Nos.2277 to 2281/Chny/2019, AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is as regards to shifting of profit to sister concern M/s. Ras…

M/S. V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Central-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2275/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

…ew of various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts and particularly the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd., (2017) 80 taxmann.com 221 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., vs. CIT, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). To this, the ld. CIT-DR has not objected. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and accordingly this common issue in all these 7 assessment years of assessee’s appeals is dismissed. 18. The next common issue in ITA Nos.2277 to 2281/Chny/2019, AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is as regards to shifting of profit to sister concern M/s. Ras…

M/S. V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons, Virudhunagar vs. PCIT-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1765/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

…ew of various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts and particularly the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd., (2017) 80 taxmann.com 221 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., vs. CIT, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). To this, the ld. CIT-DR has not objected. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and accordingly this common issue in all these 7 assessment years of assessee’s appeals is dismissed. 18. The next common issue in ITA Nos.2277 to 2281/Chny/2019, AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is as regards to shifting of profit to sister concern M/s. Ras…

Dy.C.I;.T.Central Cir6 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reynold Shirting Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2388/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit, Cc – 6(3) Vs. Reynold Shirting Ltd Room No. 1926, 19Th 402, 4Th Floor, Kamla Floor, Air India Bldg, Hub Ns Road No.1 Nariman Point, Juhu Scheme, Vile Mumbai-400021. Parle (W), Mumbai -400049. Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr7055H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Mahita Nair.Dr Respondent By : Ms.Mitalli Gopani.Ar Date Of Hearing 03.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 54, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms.Mahita Nair.DRFor Respondent: Ms.Mitalli Gopani.AR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Ltd. (421 ITR 125), Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments P. Ltd. (372 ITR 295), Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Empire Package Pvt. Ltd. (286 CTR 457), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (402 ITR 640). It is also submitted that total Investments as at 31/3/2013 Rs.251,44,04,281/- (P.Y. Rs.252,44,04,281/-) and dividend was earned only on one investment i.e. Reynold Shirting Ltd., Mumbai. Jankalyan Sahakari Bank Rs. 11,50,000/-. Therefore, no disallowance should be made on theThe grounds No. 4 is related to not granting TDS Credit amounting to…

Sriram Credit Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT CC 6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 956/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.956/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Shriram Credit Co. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner- Shriram House, Of Income Tax, 1St Floor, No.4, Corporate Circle-6(1), Burkit Road, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai. [Pan: Aagcs 4497 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.R.Sivaraman, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…omplete books of accounts. We noted that the Tribunal has already taken a view on the issue of non-recording of satisfaction after considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT :: 4 :: reported in [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC), decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom), Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Marg Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2020] 120 taxmann.com 84 (Madras), and also the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.941/Chny/2020 in the case of M/s…

Svl Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT CC 6(2), Chennai

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

ITA 955/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.955/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Svl Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner- Shriram House, Of Income Tax, 1St Floor, No.4, Corporate Circle-6(2), Burkit Road, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7696 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.R.Sivaraman, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…omplete books of accounts. We noted that the Tribunal has already taken a view on the issue :: 4 :: of non-recording of satisfaction after considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC), decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom), Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Marg Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2020] 120 taxmann.com 84 (Madras), and also the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.941/Chny/2020 in the case of M/s…

Shriram Financial Ventures (Chennai) Pvt. Limited, Chennai vs. Dcitcc3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 942/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.941/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Shriram Capital Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner- Shriram House, Of Income Tax, 1St Floor, No.4, Burkit Road, Corporate Circle-6(1), T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aabcs 2726 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr.S.Palani Kumar, CIT /
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…by the AO for invoking of formula prescribed under rule 8D of the Rules. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) and also the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom). The Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that the AO has not at all recorded his satisfaction having regards to correctness of the accounts of the assessee as to how the expenses relatable to exempt income are…

Shriram Capital Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 941/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.941/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Shriram Capital Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner- Shriram House, Of Income Tax, 1St Floor, No.4, Burkit Road, Corporate Circle-6(1), T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aabcs 2726 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr.S.Palani Kumar, CIT /
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…by the AO for invoking of formula prescribed under rule 8D of the Rules. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) and also the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom). The Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that the AO has not at all recorded his satisfaction having regards to correctness of the accounts of the assessee as to how the expenses relatable to exempt income are…

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 253/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Atul Ninawat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.253/DEL/2019 Assessment Year 2010-11 Holtec Consulting Pvt. Ltd., v. Addl. Commissioner of Income 01-0103 Imperial Tower C-Block Tax, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, Special Range-04, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACH0031M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Atul Ninawat, CA Respondent by: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 27 07 2022 Date of pronouncement: 29 07 2022 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has…

M/S. Maxivision Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 139/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 1Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…d 13.03.2017 wherein it held if there is no dividend income the disallowance under section 14A will, not arise. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance by considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd., vs. CIT, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) and by stating as under:- “The decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases mentioned in paragraph 06 above also do not give any relief to the assessee with respect to the absence of tax exempt income in our particular year. It is also absurd to disallow the expenditure for one year for the presence of tax exempt another year from the…

Adani Enterprises Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2035/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Vartik Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, C.I.T.DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 35Section 92C

…of assessee regarding expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income is incorrect, that he can compute the disallowance under Section14A as per the provisions of Rule 8D. 47.3 The Supreme Court of India in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640/254 Taxman 325/91 taxmann.com 154 has also come to a conclusion that the language of Section 14A(2) makes it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record its satisfaction that having regard to the accounts of the assessee, the suo motu disallowance made by assessee underSection14A was not correct. The Apex Court…

M/S. Enam Asset Management Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Neac, New Delhi

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

ITA 208/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 270A

…,72,715 Less: Disallowance made by assessee - Rs 25,21,223 Disallowance made by ld AO - Rs 1,66,51,492 6. This action of the ld. AO was upheld by the ld. CIT(A) in NFAC. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC) had categorically held that it is incumbent on the part of the ld. AO to record his dissatisfaction as to why the disallowance made by the assessee is incorrect having regard to the books of accounts of the assessee. This dissatisfaction has to be recorded with cogent reasons with complete objectivity. None of these guidelines of the Hon’ble…

Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (OSD) 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1019/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ld., V. Dcit (Osd)-10(3) 401-407, Nirman Vyapar Kendra Room No. 517, 4Th Floor Plot No. 10, Sector – 17 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400703 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaca6783F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Shruti Agarwal Department By : Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 195Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ld., v. DCIT (OSD)-10(3) 401-407, Nirman Vyapar Kendra Room No. 517, 4th Floor Plot No. 10, Sector – 17 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400703 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACA6783F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Shruti Agarwal Department by : Shri Mehul Jain Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14.07.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee ag…

Mint Investments Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 12(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/KOL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Mint Investments Ltd. Acit, Circle-12(2), Kol 4A, Dhunseri House, Vs. Woodburn Park, Kolkata Pan: Aadcm7416N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.12.2021 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre [Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arises Out Of The Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 22.12.2018 Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Circle-12(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer). The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH “A”, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mint Investments Ltd. ACIT, Circle-12(2), Kol 4A, Dhunseri House, Vs. Woodburn Park, Kolkata PAN: AADCM7416N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, FCA Respondent by : Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT-DR. Date of Hearing : 07.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The present appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.12.2021 passed by the C…

Mansi Finance Chennai Limited, Chennai vs. The ACIT, CC 4(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 109/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 108 & 109/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prithvi Chopda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

…evious year relevant to the assessment year 2015-16.” 22. By referring to various case law including the decision in the case of Joint Investments Private Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), the decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that the disallowance under section 14A of the Act should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned during the previous year. In view of the above legal position, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance under…