Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

Smita Conductors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(3)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesmita Conductors Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – 3(3)(2) 1402/03 Raheja Centre Room No. 609, 6Th Floor Free Press Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Pont, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacs5379K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Hirawat Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Smita Conductors Pvt. Ltd., v. DCIT – 3(3)(2) 1402/03 Raheja Centre Room No. 609, 6th Floor Free Press Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Pont, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACS5379K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sunil Hirawat Department by : Shri B.K. Bagchi Date of Hearing : 31.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21.06.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Co…

ACIT- CC - 4(2), Mumbai vs. K.Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

…e exempt income earned by the assessee was NIL. As a corollary, therefore, no disallowance could have been made u/s 14A of the Act. The relevant judgements in this regard, are as under: (i) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs CIT(402 ITR 640) which is set out hereunder: “40. We note from the facts in the State Bank of Patiala cases that the AO, while passing the assessment order, had already restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in Rule 8D of the Rules and holding that section 14A of the Act would be applicable…

ACIT- CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

…e exempt income earned by the assessee was NIL. As a corollary, therefore, no disallowance could have been made u/s 14A of the Act. The relevant judgements in this regard, are as under: (i) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs CIT(402 ITR 640) which is set out hereunder: “40. We note from the facts in the State Bank of Patiala cases that the AO, while passing the assessment order, had already restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in Rule 8D of the Rules and holding that section 14A of the Act would be applicable…

ACIT-CC -4(2), Mumbai vs. K . Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

…e exempt income earned by the assessee was NIL. As a corollary, therefore, no disallowance could have been made u/s 14A of the Act. The relevant judgements in this regard, are as under: (i) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs CIT(402 ITR 640) which is set out hereunder: “40. We note from the facts in the State Bank of Patiala cases that the AO, while passing the assessment order, had already restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in Rule 8D of the Rules and holding that section 14A of the Act would be applicable…

ACIT- CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

…e exempt income earned by the assessee was NIL. As a corollary, therefore, no disallowance could have been made u/s 14A of the Act. The relevant judgements in this regard, are as under: (i) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs CIT(402 ITR 640) which is set out hereunder: “40. We note from the facts in the State Bank of Patiala cases that the AO, while passing the assessment order, had already restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in Rule 8D of the Rules and holding that section 14A of the Act would be applicable…

ACIT- CC- 4 (2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

…e exempt income earned by the assessee was NIL. As a corollary, therefore, no disallowance could have been made u/s 14A of the Act. The relevant judgements in this regard, are as under: (i) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs CIT(402 ITR 640) which is set out hereunder: “40. We note from the facts in the State Bank of Patiala cases that the AO, while passing the assessment order, had already restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in Rule 8D of the Rules and holding that section 14A of the Act would be applicable…

ACIT- CC- 4 (2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

…e exempt income earned by the assessee was NIL. As a corollary, therefore, no disallowance could have been made u/s 14A of the Act. The relevant judgements in this regard, are as under: (i) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs CIT(402 ITR 640) which is set out hereunder: “40. We note from the facts in the State Bank of Patiala cases that the AO, while passing the assessment order, had already restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in Rule 8D of the Rules and holding that section 14A of the Act would be applicable…

ACIT - CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

…e exempt income earned by the assessee was NIL. As a corollary, therefore, no disallowance could have been made u/s 14A of the Act. The relevant judgements in this regard, are as under: (i) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs CIT(402 ITR 640) which is set out hereunder: “40. We note from the facts in the State Bank of Patiala cases that the AO, while passing the assessment order, had already restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in Rule 8D of the Rules and holding that section 14A of the Act would be applicable…

Hathway Investment P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -12, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1599/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2015-16) Hathway Investments Private Limited. Rahejas, 4Th Floor, Corner Of Main Avenue & V.P.Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 054. Pan: Aaach-1675-B ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-12, Mumbai, Room No.127, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ajay Chandra सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2022 आदेश/ Order

…at contention of assessee that investment in subsidiaries held as stock-in-trade by the assessee be excluded from the total value of investments, is contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 402 ITR 640. Although the issue was not raised by the 7 assessee in appeal, however, there was specific finding by the CIT(A) in line with the law expounded by Hon’ble Apex Court. The CIT(A) finally decided the issue following the order of Special Bench in the case of Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. 58 ITR (Trib) 313(Del-SB) holding only dividend yielding inves…

Hindustan Ports Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO -1(1_ (4) `, Mumbai

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

…ssessee is that the AO has made the disallowance at Rs.36,86,985/- without recording satisfaction as required u/s 14A of the Act [refer decision of 2 A.Y. 2017-18 Hindustan Port Pvt. Ltd. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT 402 ITR 640 (SC)]. According to the Ld. AR the lower authorities did not give proper opportunity to the assessee to show that the expenditure incurred for receiving the exempt income of Rs.6,23,369/- was only to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, he prayed that the matter may be remanded back to either the Ld. CIT(A) or the AO. 3. Per contra, the Ld. DR obj…