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 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 367,368 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 14A Section 143(3)Section 115JB Section 8D Section 37(1)Section 1961 Section 250 Section 143(2)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 14a(1)section 14a(2)strategic investment disallowance under section 14a disallowance u/s 14a section 10(34)section 14a section 36(1)(vii)section 40a(2)enduring benefit book profits section 115j

Judgments citing Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

Hero Moto Corp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Neac, Delhi

ITA 706/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 145Section 1lSection 80ISection 92C

…egard is placed on the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers 326 ITR 1(SC) ii. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. VS. DCIT: 394 ITR 449(SC) iii. Maxopp Investment Ltd: 347 ITR 272 (Del.)- Affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in 402 ITR 640 iv. CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd.: 401 ITR 445 (SC) v. PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd.:[2019] 261 Taxman 179 (Delhi) vi. H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: 399 ITR 576 (Del) vii. Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) viii. PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.) ix. CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H) x. CIT vs. I.P. Suppo…

Mll Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 164/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

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

Section 115JSection 133(6)

…1 ITA 164/Mum/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU (HON’BLE PRESIDENT) AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. No.164/Mum/2019 (Assessment year 2013-14) M/s MLL Logistics Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income- 3rd Floor, Mittal Tower, B-Wing, Free tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 PAN : AADCM7595C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Rahul Sarda, AR Respondent by Shri Bharat Andhale Sr AR(CIT) Date of hearing 20-10-2021 Date of pronouncement 18-11-2021 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal by the…

Mirah Dekor Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 14, Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6809/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Section 133ASection 14ASection 234A

…disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) amounting to Rs. 22,47,801/. 6. Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(A) confirmed the Assessing Officer’s action. 7. We note that it has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court also in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154), disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed exempt income. The exempt income noted by the Assessing Officer is only Rs. 20,724/-. Hence, disallowance cannot be more than that. Furthermore regarding disallowance of under rule 8D(2)(iii), Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Vireet Investments (165 ITD 27) has held that disallowance under…

Hotel Polo Tower Private Limited, Shillong vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- Shillong, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 287/GTY/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Nov 2021

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhury & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwali.T.A. No.287/Gau/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Hotel Polo Towers (P) Ltd..…….……………….…………...………..….. Appellant Polo Grounds, Shillong-793001, Meghalaya. [Pan: Aabct0864B] Vs. Acit, Circle, Shillong………….....….………………………………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri K. M. Roy, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 11, 2021 Order Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhury:

Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…, no satisfaction has been recorded before arriving at the decision that whether the assessee is liable for any addition u/s 14A or not. That for this proposition, the Ld. counsel placed reliance in the decision of Maxopp Investment vs. CIT reported in [2018] 91 Taxmann 154 (SC) dated 12.02.2018 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed and held as follows: “41) 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 theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo m…

Jpm Tools Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi

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

ITA 5232/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jpm Tools Ltd., Vs Acit, Sanjay Satpal & Assocaites, F-11, Central Circle-13, Green Park Extension, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacj3128K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2021

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ance as held in Pr. CIT v. McDonalds India (P) Ltd. ITA 725/2018 decided on 22nd October, 2018 cannot exceed the exempt income of that year. This decision follows the ratio and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640/254 Taxman 325/91 taxmann.com 154 and the earlier judgments of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest v. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33/234 Taxman 761/61 tasmann.com 118 and CIT v, Holcim (P) Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi). Relevant portion of the judgment in McDonalds India (P.) Ltd. (supra) reads:- [Assessment Year : 2015-16] '8. The decision in the…

Alpex International P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 779/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistryFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.779/Mum./2014 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Alpex International Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Piramal Estates P. Ltd.) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg ……………. Appellant Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 PAN – AACCA777K v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–6(1), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri J.D. Mistry Revenue by : Shri Mehul Jain Date of Hearing – 01.11.2021 Date of Order – 11.11.2021 O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, J.M. The assessee compa…

Dy CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marine Drive Hospitality & Realty P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 70/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dcit, Cc – 1(4), Vs. M/S. Marine Drive 9Th Floor, 902, Pratishta Hospitality & Reality Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg Pvt Ltd., (Annexe), Mk Road, Ground Floor, Db Mumbai – 400 020. House, Gen. Ak Vaidya Marg, Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400 063. Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn1891R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Parisamy. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Hema Kataria. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…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." 4.6 In case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT 402 ITR 640 (SC), 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 ITA No. 70 & 71/Mum/2021 M/s Marine Drive Hospitality & Realty Pvt Ltd, Mumbai dividend income, that much of the expenditure which is attributable to the dividend income has to be. dis…

DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Siroya Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6227/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: The Sales Tax Department That They Had Not Supplied Any Material For Which The Assessee Has Claimed Expenses?

Section 14A

…Supreme Court in the case of CIT(Central)- 1 v/s. Chettinad Logistics Pvt Ltd, (2018) 95 taxmann.com 250, in which the SLP filed by the department was rejected on merits on the same issue and by the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154). 4.4.5 Respectfully, relying on the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it is held that the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D was not warranted in this case. In the light of the foregoing discussion, reduction of the WIP by Rs. 6,80,642 is hereby reversed. This ground stands allowed.” 13. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal…

I.T.O., Ward-1(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Neelanchal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 95/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.95/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata......………………………….……………..Appellant Vs. M/S Neelanchal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd…….……........……...…..…..Respondent 14, Princep Street, 1St Floor, Kolkata-700072. [Pan:Aaacn8842N] Appearances By: Shri Tushar Dhawal Singh, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 07, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 26, 2021 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Shri Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 14.11.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit’) Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. No One Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, After Going 2. Through The Impugned Order & The Available Records On The File & After Hearing The Ld. Dr, We Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal. 3. The Sole Issue Involved In The Appeal Is Relating To Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 14A R.W. Rule 8D In Respect Disallowance Of Expenditure On Tax Exemption Income Of The Assessee. 4. A Perusal Of The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Reveals That The Ld. Cit(A) While Relying Upon The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Cases Of Pcit Vs. State Bank Of Patiala [(2017) 78 Taxmann.Com 3(Sc)] & Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. Cit [(2018) 91 Taxmann.Com 154(Sc)] Has Restricted The Disallowance To The Extent Of

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” (Virtual Court Hearing) BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.95/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITO, Ward-1(4), Kolkata......………………………….……………..Appellant vs. M/s Neelanchal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd…….……........……...…..…..Respondent 14, Princep Street, 1st Floor, Kolkata-700072. [PAN:AAACN8842N] Appearances by: Shri Tushar Dhawal Singh, CIT, appeared on behalf of the appellant. None appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : September 07, 2021 Date of pronouncing the order : Octob…

DCIT-CC.3(3), Central Range-3 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. M/S. Oricon Enterprises Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6094/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Oricon Enterprises Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax – Cc-3(3),Mumbai Vs. 1076, Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Nahta, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…herefore, he was precluded from establishing one-to-one nexus between the expenses and the exempt income yielding investments. Further, the A.O drawing support from the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC), rejected the claim of the assessee that no disallowance u/s 14A was called for w.r.t its strategic investments. Observing, that as the dividend earned by the assessee company on the shares was exempt from tax, the A.O was of the view that the applicability of Sec. 14A would stand triggered and the expenditure attributable to earning of the…

M/S. Oricon Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-CC-3(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5454/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Nahta, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Saurashtra Gramin Bank, Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 376/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.376/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Saurashtra Gramin Bank, Circle-3(1), Vs. Gopalnaga, Opp. Andh Mahila Rajkot. Vikas Gruh, Rajkot.

For Appellant: Ms A.D. Vyas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri

Section 43D

…nce as held in Pr. CIT v. McDonalds India (P.) Ltd. ITA 725/2018 decided on 22nd October, 2018 cannot exceed the exempt income of that year. This decision follows the ratio and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CI T[2018] 402 ITR 640/254 Taxman 325/91 taxmann.com 154 and the earlier judgments of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest v. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33/234 Taxman 761/61 taxmann.com 118 and CIT v. Holcim (P.) Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi).” 20.3 In view of the above we are of the view that no further disallowances required to be made under section 14A read with Rule…

DCIT, C-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Citicorp Finance(I) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, revenues appeal is dismissed and cross objection is partly

ITA 4172/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri R.K. Shah (DR)

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s Citicorp Finance (India) Circle – 14(1)(2), Limited, Room No. 475, 4th Floor, First International Financial Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Centre (FIFC), Mumbai - 400020 8th Floor, Plot C-54 & 55, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 PAN: AABCA4881F (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No. 74/MUM/2021 (Arising out of ITA No. 4172/MUM/2019) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Citicorp Finance (In…

M/S Alankar Optical Centre, Mumbai vs. ITO 18 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7179/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Section 14ASection 40

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) I.T.A. No. 7179/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Vs. ITO-18(1)(1) M/s. Alankar Optical Centre 381/C, Narottam Wadi 2nd Floor Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi Earnest House Mumbai-400 002. Nariman Point Mumbai-21. PAN : AAAFA0472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Devendra Shah Department by Ms. Smita Verma Date of Hearing 14.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement 21.10.2021 O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 18.9.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2014-15. 2. The grounds of appeal…

Kothari Products Ltd., Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 255/LKW/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2009-10 &

Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 4A

…has no causal connection with the exempted income, then such an expenditure would obviously be treated as not related to the income that is exempted from tax, and such expenditure would be allowed as business expenditure. To put it differently, such 10 (2018) 15 SCC 523 Page 15 of 22 expenditure would then be considered as incurred in respect of other income which is to be treated as part of the total income.” Adverting to the law as it stood earlier, this Court rejected the theory of dominant purpose suggested by the Punjab & Haryana High Court and accepted the principle of apportionment of expenditure only whe…

Kothari Products Ltd., Kanpur vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 928/LKW/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2009-10 &

Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 4A

Puran Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-20(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2087/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

…4, the assessee has contested that the investment in Dabur India Ltd. being a strategic investment would not form part of the total income under the Act. However, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs CIT in 402 ITR 640, the issue is covered against the assessee and, therefore, this grounds of appeal is dismissed. 7. The grounds no. 5 relates to disallowance of business expenses Rs. 9,44,390/-. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly accepted that this issue is covered against the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessment year 2013- 14.…

Nilkamal Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT Central Cir-1(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2001/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Nilkamal Limited Acit, Cc-1(2) 77/78, Nilkamal House, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Road No. 13, Midc, Old Cgo, Annexe, Andheri (East), M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 093 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Aaacn2329N (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi, A.R Revenue By : Shri Kprr Murty, D.R Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murty, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ompelling reasons for a departure from a settled position has to be spelt out which conspicuously is absent in the present case.” Also, the aforesaid view was once again reiterated by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). In its aforesaid order, it was, inter alia, observed by the Hon‟ble Court that before taking recourse to the theory of apportionment and computing the disallowance under Sec. 14A(2) r.w. Rule 8D, the A.O remains under a statutory obligation to record his satisfaction that the suo-motto disallowance offered by the assessee under Sec. 14A was…

Care Ratings Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt, CIT-6(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs.1,07,16,645/- made by the A.O u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D is vacated. The Ground of appeal No. 1 is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1832/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Care Ratings Limited Asst. Commissioner Of 4Th Floor, Godrej Vs. Income Tax-6(2)(1), Coliseum, Somaiya Aayakar Bhavan, Hospital Road, Off Maharishi Karve Road, Eastern Express Highway, Mumbai – 400 020 Sion (East), Mumbai – 400 022 Pan No. Aaacc4587F (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Tejas Sodha, A.R Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri Tejas Sodha, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ome was not to be accepted, therefore, had validly assumed jurisdiction and worked out the disallowance as per mechanism provided in Rule 8D. The ld. D.R relied on the judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). 7. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements ITA No.1832/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 6 Care Ratings Limited Vs. ACIT-6(2)(1) that have been pressed into service by them to drive home t…

Bachhraj & Company Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 3 (1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the same terms

ITA 7349/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.7348 & 7349/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Bachhraj & Company The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bajaj Bhawan, Room No. 607, Aayakar 226, Nariman Point, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Aaacb5589N (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.R Revenue By : Shri Kprr Murty, D.R Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murty, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITA Nos. 7348 & 7349/Mum/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 1 Bachhraj & Company Private Limited Vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (VICE PRESIDENT) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos.7348 & 7349/MUM/2019 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Bachhraj & Company The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, 2nd Floor, Vs. of Income-tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bajaj Bhawan, Room No. 607, Aayakar 226, Nariman Point, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN No. AAACB5589N (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by : Shri Kirit Ka…