Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

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

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

…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…

Shardul Securities Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Range-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

…assessee’s stand was not acceptable having regard to the accounts of the assessee as per the mandate of Section 14A of the Act. This Tribunal also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd., reported in 402 ITR 640 wherein it was held that it is mandatory on the part of the ld. AO to record the satisfaction with cogent reasons in terms of Section 14A(2) and 14A(3) of the Act r.w.Rule 8D(1) of the Rules before resorting to computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. Since, no satisfaction has been recorded in the instant case by the ld. AO, we…

Greatship (India ) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7151/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Greatship (India) Ltd. Dcit-5(1)(1) बिाम/ Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Esplande House, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcg-8542-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore- Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sunil Deshpande- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 05/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Assails Final Assessment Order Dated 17/10/2017 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-I, Mumbai U/S 144C(5) Dated 28/09/2017. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: -

…s of Section 14A(2) and (3) read with Rule 8D of the Rules or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing, would become applicable.” Similar view had thereafter been taken by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). We find that involving identical facts in the case of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10, wherein a suo-motto disallowance offered by the assessee was rejected by the A.O, and was thereafter substituted by an enhanced amount of disallowance as per the methodology contemplated in Sec. 14A r.w Rule 8D, that on appeal the Tribunal vide…

Sanjee vs. Mehta, Mumbaivs.ITO, 22(3)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifuar Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Mr. Sanjeev S. Mehta Ito - 22(3)(2) 704, Green Gates Perry Road, Vs. Piramal Chambers Bandra (West), Lalbagh, Mumbai – 400 050 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan No. Aagpm6845D (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Hari Raheja, A.R Revenue By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2021

…ion 14A(2) and (3) read with Rule 8D of the Rules or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing, would become applicable.” The aforesaid view was once again reiterated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. VS. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). In the aforesaid case, it was once again observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that if the A.O was not satisfied with the disallowance that was offered by the assessee, then, he remained under a statutory obligation to record his dissatisfaction to the said effect, as it was only thereafter that he could assume jurisdiction and take recours…

ACIT 3 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Lml Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

…ional P Ltd vs ACIT (ITA No.3405/Mum/2015) 4.2.3 The issue of restriction of the disallowance under section 34A to the exempt income has been conclusively decided the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent judgement in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT ( 91 Taxmann.com 154). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 40 of the judgement has observed as under: "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 81) of the Rules and…

Subhkam Ventrures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2013-14

…investments are to be excluded and should not be taken into account while working out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. However, subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in their decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, New Delhi, 91 Taxmann.com 154, have held that the dominant purpose for which the investments into shares is made by an assessee may not be relevant and the same is not a relevant factor in determining the issue of disallowance u/s.14A. Their Lordships have also observed that the fact remains that the consequent dividend income earned is non-taxable and in that scenario…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Subhkam Ventrures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2013-14

…investments are to be excluded and should not be taken into account while working out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. However, subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in their decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, New Delhi, 91 Taxmann.com 154, have held that the dominant purpose for which the investments into shares is made by an assessee may not be relevant and the same is not a relevant factor in determining the issue of disallowance u/s.14A. Their Lordships have also observed that the fact remains that the consequent dividend income earned is non-taxable and in that scenario…

DCIT Circle-2 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Fine Estate Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

…I.T. Rules. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that identical issue came up before the Tribunal for immediately preceding assessment year wherein the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [402 ITR 640] directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of I.T. Rules. 4. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the decision relied on. On a perusal of the orders of the lower auth…

Fine Estate Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-2 (1) ( 2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

…I.T. Rules. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that identical issue came up before the Tribunal for immediately preceding assessment year wherein the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [402 ITR 640] directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of I.T. Rules. 4. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the decision relied on. On a perusal of the orders of the lower auth…