Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

Hinduja Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Range -7(1)(2) (Earlier DCIT 6(1)), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal of assessee is dismissed and order of Ld

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalhinduja Finance Ltd. 171, Hinduja House, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 Pan: Aagca0533R ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit, Range-7(1)(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ruturaj Gurjar Respondent By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/05/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 05.09.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010- 11. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming: I) The Disallowance Made U/S.14A Of The Income Tax Act At Rs.7, 06,985/- As Against Disallowance Of Rs.2, 52,536/- As Computed By The Appellant. The Disallowance Made Of Rs.4, 54,449/- May Please Be Deleted.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hinduja Finance Ltd. 171, Hinduja House, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 PAN: AAGCA0533R ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.CIT, Range-7(1)(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Ruturaj Gurjar Respondent by : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 25/03/2022 Date of pronouncement : 20/05/2022 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13,…

M/S. Subhkam Ventures (India), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "H" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Subhkam Ventures (India) Private Limited, 14th Floor, Maker Chamber IV, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 [PAN: AAACW1624M] ……………… Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1(3)(1),Mumbai, Room No. 540, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Churchgate, …………….… Respondent Mumbai - 400021 Appearances For the Respondent/ Assessee : Shri Sanjay Parikh For the Appellant/Department Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Date of conclusion of hearing : 17.02.2022 Date of pronouncement of order…

Jp Morgan Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 10 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 3512/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2014-15) J.P.Morgan Services India Private Limited, Level Nos. 9 To 11, Prism Towers, Mindspace, Link Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai – 400 104. Pan: Aabcd-0503-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 10(2)(1), Room No.509, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Porus Kaka Sr. Advocate With Shri & Divesh Chawla ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Satya Pinisetty सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/05/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 28/02/2019, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed Transfer Pricing (Tp) Adjustment & Disallowance Made U/S. 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]. The Relevant Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Appeal Are As Under:-

…e by the assessee. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the disallowance computed by the Assessing Officer is thus, liable to be rejected. To buttress his submissions he placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 402 ITR 640(SC) (ii) PCIT vs. Reliance Capital Assets Management Ltd. 400 ITR 217 (Bom) (iii) PCIT vs. Vedanta Ltd., 261 Taxman 179 (Del) (iv) PCIT vs. Bajaj Finance Ltd., 110 taxamann.com 303 (Bom) (v) PCIT vs. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. 113 taxmann.com 303 (Bom) 5. Au contraire, Shri Satya Pinisetty representing the Department vehemently defended the impu…

Dy CIT. CC- 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. D.B. Realty Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

…Hon‟ble Court held as under: “That would not preclude the assessee from taking a stand that no disallowance under Section 14 A of the Act was called for in the AY in question because no exempt income was earned.” 7.6 In case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT 402 ITR 640 (SQ), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under: “Fact remains that such dividend income is non-taxable. In this scenario, if expenditure is incurred on earning the dividend income, that much of the expenditure which is attributable to the dividend income has to be disallowed and cannot be treated as business 4 A.Y.2017-18 expenditure. Keeping th…