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.

How many judgments cite Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT?

1,596 judgments on BharatTax cite Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (402 ITR 640), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 8D, Section 37(1), Section 1961.

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (402 ITR 640)

DCIT-9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Future Corporate Resources Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 4145/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Achal Sharma

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14A

…issue came up before Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd., (2020) 185 DTR 390 (Bom) and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., v. CIT [402 ITR 640] held as under: - “11. Non-satisfaction with the disallowance offered by the assessee has to be arrived at on the basis of the accounts submitted by the assessee. In 7 ITA No.4145/Mum/2019 & C.O No.120/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2015-16 The DCIT -9(3)(2) Vs. M/s Future Corporate Resources Ltd. this case, the Assessing Officer had not carried out the aforesa…

Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-21, New Delhi

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

ITA 2086/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2014-15 Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Vs Addl. Cit, Ltd., Range-21, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23Rd January, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal No. 1 & 2 Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. That Both The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Ao Erred In Law & In Facts In Disallowance Of Rs.1,08,69,547/- U/S 14A In A Mechanical Way Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Himself Has Disallowed Rs 2.41 Lakhs & That There Cannot Be Any Further Disallowance U/S 14A Without A Cogent Reason. 2. That Both The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Ao Erred In Law & In Facts In Appreciating That Strategic Investments In Dabur India Limited As The Promoter Shareholder, Would Not Form Part Of Disallowance U/S 14A.”

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Vs Addl. CIT, Ltd., Range-21, 4th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. PAN: AAACR0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue by : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 29.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 28.01.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23rd January, 2018 of the CIT(A)-7,…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Astral Polytechnik Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal of Revenue

ITA 1966/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.R. & Shri BirenFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Shukla,Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 250

…14A read with Rule 8D. Therefore we dismiss the Ground No. 1 of Revenue. 8. Ground No.2: 8.1 In this Ground, the Revenue has claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. 402 ITR 640. 8.2 It may be noted that in Maxopp Investment (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided only one specific issue, of course which goes in favour of revenue and against the assessee. The Hon’ble Court had turned down the argument that section 14A and Rule 8D are not applicable where the investment in shares is made as a part of strategic obje…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 967/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 32(2)

…n expenditure under section 14A, in absence of reason why assessee's claim for disallowance under section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure has no casual connection with the exempt income, such expenditure would be an allowable expenditure. 19. Proceeding further, different facets of the issue are…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 947/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 32(2)

…n expenditure under section 14A, in absence of reason why assessee's claim for disallowance under section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure has no casual connection with the exempt income, such expenditure would be an allowable expenditure. 19. Proceeding further, different facets of the issue are…

ACIT Corporate Circle 1, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1883/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 32(2)

…n expenditure under section 14A, in absence of reason why assessee's claim for disallowance under section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure has no casual connection with the exempt income, such expenditure would be an allowable expenditure. 19. Proceeding further, different facets of the issue are…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Madurai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1846/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 32(2)

…n expenditure under section 14A, in absence of reason why assessee's claim for disallowance under section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure has no casual connection with the exempt income, such expenditure would be an allowable expenditure. 19. Proceeding further, different facets of the issue are…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1272/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 32(2)

…n expenditure under section 14A, in absence of reason why assessee's claim for disallowance under section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure has no casual connection with the exempt income, such expenditure would be an allowable expenditure. 19. Proceeding further, different facets of the issue are…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1078/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 32(2)

…n expenditure under section 14A, in absence of reason why assessee's claim for disallowance under section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure has no casual connection with the exempt income, such expenditure would be an allowable expenditure. 19. Proceeding further, different facets of the issue are…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1077/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 32(2)

…n expenditure under section 14A, in absence of reason why assessee's claim for disallowance under section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure has no casual connection with the exempt income, such expenditure would be an allowable expenditure. 19. Proceeding further, different facets of the issue are…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1076/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 32(2)

…n expenditure under section 14A, in absence of reason why assessee's claim for disallowance under section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure has no casual connection with the exempt income, such expenditure would be an allowable expenditure. 19. Proceeding further, different facets of the issue are…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1063/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 32(2)

…n expenditure under section 14A, in absence of reason why assessee's claim for disallowance under section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure has no casual connection with the exempt income, such expenditure would be an allowable expenditure. 19. Proceeding further, different facets of the issue are…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1062/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 32(2)

…n expenditure under section 14A, in absence of reason why assessee's claim for disallowance under section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure has no casual connection with the exempt income, such expenditure would be an allowable expenditure. 19. Proceeding further, different facets of the issue are…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1061/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 32(2)

…n expenditure under section 14A, in absence of reason why assessee's claim for disallowance under section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure has no casual connection with the exempt income, such expenditure would be an allowable expenditure. 19. Proceeding further, different facets of the issue are…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1060/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 32(2)

…n expenditure under section 14A, in absence of reason why assessee's claim for disallowance under section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure has no casual connection with the exempt income, such expenditure would be an allowable expenditure. 19. Proceeding further, different facets of the issue are…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1059/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 32(2)

…n expenditure under section 14A, in absence of reason why assessee's claim for disallowance under section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure has no casual connection with the exempt income, such expenditure would be an allowable expenditure. 19. Proceeding further, different facets of the issue are…

Kesoram Industries Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Kolkata

The appeals are allowed and substantial

ITA/148/2018HC Calcutta19 Jan 2022

Bench: Us In These Two Appeals.

For Appellant: Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 260A

…canvassed before the CIT(A) as well as before the Tribunal. The law on the issue is no longer res integra and we are guided by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 6 Maxopp Investment Ltd.-Vs-Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC). Paragraphs 34 and 41 would be of relevance to the case on hand, which is quoted hereinbelow for better appreciation: “34 Having clarified the aforesaid position, the first and foremost issue that falls for consideration is as to whether the dominant purpose test, which is pressed into service by the assessees would apply while interpreting…

Rane Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 650/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…5,570/- towards exempt income. Once the AO has not recorded satisfaction as envisaged under Rule 8D(2) of the Rules, the issue is in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd., vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “Having regard to the language of section 14A(2) of the Act, read with rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the I.T.A. No.650/Chny/2020 9 theory of apportionment, the Assessing Officer needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo motu disall…

Shriram Retail Holdings Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1252/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D.V. Subba Rao (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Tribunal vide ITA No.1477/Mds/2013 dated 10.04.2014. In the above background, the assessee pleaded for deletion of disallowance as made by Ld. AO. 4.4 The Ld. CIT(A), in terms of later decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. (91 Taxmann.com 154), held that disallowance would be applicable even in respect of strategic investment in sister concern for controlling stake. Finally, the action of Ld. AO was upheld against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. The primary argument raised before us by Ld. AR is that no objective satisfaction has been recorded by Ld. AO be…

Hdfc Bank Ltd (Successor to Businss of Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 374/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Hon’Ble) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Hon’Ble)

Section 14A

…ld as stock in trade, no disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D can be made in respect of exempt income earned thereon. He submitted, the aforesaid legal principle has also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT 402 ITR 640 (SC) and in case of South Indian Bank Ltd vs CIT Civil Appeal No.9606 of 2011 judgement dated 09-09-2021. Additionally, he also relied upon the following decisions:- 1. CIT vs Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank 251 ITR 194 (SC) 2. PCIT vs State Bank of Patiala 391 ITR 218 (P&H High Court) 3. CIT vs M/s India Advantage Securities Ltd (Bom H…

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

What is Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT-9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Future Corporate Resources Ltd, Mumbai

Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-21, New Delhi

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Astral Polytechnik Ltd., Ahmedabad

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Madurai

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Madurai

ACIT Corporate Circle 1, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Madurai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1, Madurai

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Kesoram Industries Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Kolkata

Rane Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai

Shriram Retail Holdings Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

Hdfc Bank Ltd (Successor to Businss of Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai