Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

Kotak Securities Limited, Mumbai vs. Add. CIT-Circle-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

…o far as the nature of investments viz. strategic investments / stock-in-trade is concerned, we find that the controversy stood settled by the recent decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in group of cases titled as Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT [12/02/2018 91 Taxmann.com 154], wherein Hon’ble court has expressed the 7 ITA.NOs. 6023, 6024, 6256 & 6257/MUM/2019 M/s. Kotak Securities Ltd., view that the nature of investments would be of no relevance while computing disallowance u/s 14A. Therefore, the plea as raised by Ld. Sr. Counsel on these lines would also be of no help to the assessee. 4.6 However, in terms…

Gujarat Pipavav Ports Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO -14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee for A

…103 taxmann.com 326 wherein it was held that the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act could not be made in the absence of exempt income. The law is very much settled in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640 wherein it had been held that disallowance u/s 14A of he Act cannot be invoked in the absence of exempt income and there cannot be any quarrel on this issue. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the M/s. Gujarat Pipavav Port Ltd., order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground Nos.2 & 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 5. In the result,…

Anthea Aromatics Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 15 (1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Anthea Aromatics Private Limited, R-81/82, Rabale TTC Industrial Area, Navi Mumbai - 400701 [PAN: AAACA6031G] ……………… Appellant Vs ACIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai, Ayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400020 …………….… Respondent Appearances For the Respondent/ Assessee : Shri S. Jana (AR) For the Appellant/Department Shri Mehul Jain (DR) Date of conclusion of hearing : 14.02.2022 Date of pronouncement of order : 29.03.2022 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Appell…

M/S. Avinash Bhosale Infrastructure, Pune vs. DCIT Central Cir- 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1952/मुं/2020 ("न.व 2017-18) M/S. Avinash Bhosale Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 2, Abil House, Ganesh Khind Road, Range Hill Corner, Pune 411 007. Pan: Aabca-5452-C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit Central Cir 2(3), 8Th Floor, Room No.803, Old Cgo Bldg. Pratistha Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri T. Shankar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 28/12/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2022

…e once the Assessing Officer 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 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 appointment of expenses can arise.” [Emphasized now] 9.…

Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patel Energy Esources Ltd., Mumbai

In the result impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 327/मुं/2021("न.व.2013-14) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2(3)(1), Room No.509, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai 400 020 बनाम/ Vs. M/S. Patel Energy Resources Ltd., Patel Engineering Compound, Patel Estate Road, Jogeshwari(W), Mumbai 400 102 Pan: Aaecp-5477-H : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri R.A.Dhyani Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kisnadwala सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 10/03/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

…D of the Act is to be made even where tax payer in a particular year has not earned any 3 exempt income. The ld. Departmental Representative to further strenthen his submission draws support from the following decisions: (i) Maxopp Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, 402 ITR 640(SC); and (ii)Lally Motors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT , 170 ITD 370 (Amritsar- Trib) 5. On the other hand, Shri Mayur Kisnadwala appearing on behalf of the assessee strongly supported the order of CIT(A).The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed that no fresh investments were made in the impugned assessment year. The investments mad…

DCIT 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sky Appliances Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2014-15

…th Rule 8D(ii)(iii) of the Rules. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO by returning the following findings: “3.1.3 Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has given a landmark judgement on the section 14A in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd 91 Taxmann.com 154. The judgement is particularly relevant on the issues of strategic investment and stock in trade, while applying the provisions of section 14A. It is held that if expenditure is incurred on earning dividend income, that much of expenditure which is attributable to dividend income has to be disallowed and cannot be treated as business expen…