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 14ASection 143(3)Section 115JBSection 8DSection 37(1)Section 1961Section 250Section 143(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 14a(1)section 14a(2)strategic investmentdisallowance under section 14adisallowance u/s 14asection 10(34)section 14asection 36(1)(vii)section 40a(2)enduring benefitbook profitssection 115j

Judgments citing Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

Il & Fs Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2819/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ It (Tp)A No. 2819/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) M/S Il&Fs Technologies Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of The Il&Fs Financial Centre, Plot Income Tax, Circle- 14(2)(1), Room No.474, 4 Th No.C-22, G-Block, Bandra Kurla फनाभ/ Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 400 051 M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacd2042C अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri. Atul Nirawat, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri. Sushil Kumar Mishra, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.09.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 16.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-I, Mumbai [In Short ‘Drp’], In Objection No. 70 Vide Direction Dated 08.12.2016. The Assessment Was Framed By The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circe 14(2)(1), Mumbai (In Short ‘Acit/Ao’) For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Vide Order Dated 30.01.2017 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'Act')..

For Appellant: Shri. Atul Nirawat, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Sushil Kumar Mishra, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…Officer claimed that there is no exempt income earned by assessee during the year. Once, there is no exempt income, we find that disallowance cannot be made in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC). Hence, ITA No. Anchor Daewoo Industries Ltd; M/s Anchor Daewoo Industries Ltd.; AY 13-14 we delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and DRP under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed. 7. In the Result, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open c…

Hero Future Energies P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee are partly allowed holding that disallowance confirmed by the ld

ITA 4860/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Somit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. D. R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…at preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals), who upheld the disallowance. She held that the disallowance according to Rule 8D is mandatory in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) and further working made by the Assessing Officer is correct. Assessee is aggrieved of the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) and has preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate, on behalf of the assessee and Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR. We have also perused the orders of the lower authorities. 5. Apparently in this case…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 03, New Delhi vs. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5941/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: S/Shri R.S. Singhvi & Satyajeet Goel
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-1” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.5940 & 5941/DEL/2017 Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Addl. CIT, Special Range-03, v. DLF Ltd., New Delhi. DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACD3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Cos. No.5 & 6/DEL/2021 Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 DLF Ltd., v. Addl. CIT, Special Range-03, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACD3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR Respondent by: S/Shri R.S. Singhvi &…

The South Indian Bank Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-009606-009606 - 2011Supreme Court09 Sept 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

Section 14Section 14A

…n 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…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Heal Kraft India Pvt. Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3537/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

…on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. As regards arguments of the ld.AR for the assessee on the issue of satisfaction as required u/s.14A(2) of the Act, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT, 402 ITR 640 has settled the controversy, where it has been clearly held that the issue of satisfaction comes into play only when the assessee has made suo-motto disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income, but the AO did not accept disallowance made by the assessee. In this case, the assessee has not made any suo-motto disallowance of expenses and he…

Healkraft Pharma India Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. Addl.CIT Corporate Range- 2, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3345/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

…on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. As regards arguments of the ld.AR for the assessee on the issue of satisfaction as required u/s.14A(2) of the Act, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT, 402 ITR 640 has settled the controversy, where it has been clearly held that the issue of satisfaction comes into play only when the assessee has made suo-motto disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income, but the AO did not accept disallowance made by the assessee. In this case, the assessee has not made any suo-motto disallowance of expenses and he…

Acira Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 5 (1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1273/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2021AY 2012-13
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…sessee company is engaged in the business of trading in shares and securities. In respect of shares held as stock in trade, the provisions of section 14A of the Act are applicable as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640(SC). We find that the assessee during the year under consideration was in receipt of dividend of RS 45,83,400/- which was claimed as exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act in the return of income. Before the ld AO, the assessee had claimed that it has not incurred any expenditure to earn the said dividend income and therefore no expenditure could be attrib…

DCIT, Cen. Circle-4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 6102/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 6102/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2016-17) Dcit, Cen, Circle-4(10) बिधम/ M/S. Runwal Developers Room No.1918, 19Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 1St Floor, Runwal Chambers, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. First Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400022. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5294/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Runwal Developers Pvt. बिधम/ Dcit, Cen, Circle-4(10) Room No.1918, 19Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. 1St Floor, Runwal Chambers, Air India Building, Nariman First Road, Chembur, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400022. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0395J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rishabh Shah Revenue By: Shri Bharat Andhle (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/06/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/09/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 20.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2016-17. Ita. No.6102/Mum/2019 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, 5294/M/2019 A.Y. 2016-17 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2016- 17. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle (DR)
Section 115JSection 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 14A

…vant year. 6.6 Further, the issue as to whether no disallowance u/s. 14A can be made if during the relevant year, the assessee has not earned any exempt income has subsequent to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd (402 ITR 640) also been adjudicated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mcdonald's India P. Ltd. (101 taxmann.com 86). In this decision, the Hon'ble High Court held that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra) cannot be said to have over-ruled their decisions in the cases of Cheminvest Ltd. (supra) an…

Exlservices.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ltu, Circle- 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7392/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat(Through Video Conferencing) Exlservices.Com (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 414, 4Th Floor, Plot No.10 Circle – 1, Nbcc Plaza & 11, Dlp Jasola Tower-B, Pushp Vihar, Dda District Centre, Saket, New Delhi New Delhi - 110025 Pan No. Aaace 5174 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Saksham Singhal, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 31.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 155JSection 271(1)(c)

…ndatory and for the aforesaid proposition he relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT 394 ITR 449 (SC), Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 - affirmed by Supreme Court in 402 ITR 640 and HT Media Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT 399 ITR 576 (Del). He thereafter submitted that on identical facts in A.Y. 2011-12, the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal deleted the disallowance by holding that in the absence of any satisfaction recorded by the AO with respect to the examination of the books of account of the assessee to verify the correctness of the…

DCIT Circle- 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Cable Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 1010/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 10(34)Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 24Section 36Section 43B

…permissible when the assesse has not earned exempt income. This proposition is further supported by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Delite Enterprises (in ITA No. 110 of 2009) and Hon’ble Apex Court decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. 402 ITR 640 (SC) wherein the proposition that disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income has been upheld. As an obvious corollary, when there is no exempt income 3 Cable Corporation of India Ltd. there cannot be disallowance u/s 14A. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the order of Ld.CIT(A). 7. Apropos…

Ashok Kirtanlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Add. CIT CC-22 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5842/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balalganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ashok Kirtanlal Shah Addl. Cit-Range 19(1) (Presently, Addl, Circle 22(1) 401, 4Th Floor, Anand House, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lal Baug, 13Th Road, Off. Linking Road, Mumbai 400 012 Khar West, Mumbai – 400 052

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Kirtanlal Shah Vs. Addl.CIT, Range-19(1) support from the judgments of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boys Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. PCIT and Anr. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) and that in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). It was, thus, submitted by the ld. A.R that in the backdrop of the aforesaid invalid assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O the disallowance worked out by him u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D could not be sustained and was liable to be vacated. 6. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‗D.R‘) relied on the orders of the lower authori…

J.M. Financial and Investment Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT C-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 4277/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaljm Financial & Vs. Dcit, Circle – 3(2)(1) Investment Consultancy Room No. 608, Services Pvt Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 141, Maker Chambers Road, Mumbai. Iii, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj1237H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dr. K Shivaram. Ar Respondent By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 16.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 8, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Dr. K Shivaram. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad. DR
Section 115JSection 141Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ther, identical issue came up before Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd., (supra), 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 this case, the Assessing Officer had not carried out the aforesaid exercise but rejected the disallowance claimed by the assessee only on the ground that it was not in accordance with…

Dy CIT CC 6 (4), Mumbai vs. Smt. Archana Ajay Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 7329/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 7329/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2009-10) आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 7330/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2010-11) आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 7331/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2011-12) आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 7360/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2014-15) आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 7361/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2015-16) आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 5261/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2016-17) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Smt. Archana Ajay Mittal Tax, Central Circle-6(4), 308, Level-3, Ceejay House, Room No.1925, 19 Th Floor, Air Dr. Annie Besant Road, फनाभ/ India Building, Nariman Point Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Vs. Mumbai-400 021 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aagpm6545C आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 7773/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2014-15) आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 7774/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2015-16) Smt. Archana Ajay Mittal The Dy. Commissioner Of 308, Level-3, Ceejay House, Dr. Income Tax, Central Circle- Annie Besant Road, Worli, 6(4), फनाभ/ Mumbai-400 018 Room No.1925, 19 Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Point Mumbai-400 021 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aagpm6545C In Ita Nos.7329-7331, 7360 & 7361, 5261, 7773 & 7774/Mum/2019 Smt. Archanaajay Mittal; Ay 09-10 To 11-12, 14-15 To 16-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri piyush Chajed, AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…assessee in view of the decision of Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd. (supra). We noted that the assessee has earned exempt income to the tune of ₹403/- only and in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC), we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) who has rightly restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income i.e. 403/- only. We confirm the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal of Revenue is dismissed. 11. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.08.2021. (एभ. फार…

Ifci Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 3644/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 14A

…r the AY 2010-11 which was finally accepted by the Tribunal. Thus, the Ld. AR has submitted that the addition made by the AO is liable to be deleted. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT, 402 ITR 640. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that for the year under consideration the AO has recorded the fact that no evidence has been furnished by the assessee to 6 ITA.No.3644/Del./2018 IFCI Ltd. establish that no expenses have been incurred in earning the dividend income. The AO has observed that certain expenses like cost of borrowings,…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)., Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1663/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1745/H/2016 and 1120, 1121 & 1663/H/2017 AY.: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner of Vs. KSK Energy Company Income-tax, Circle – Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. 2(1), Hyderabad. PAN – AACCK9414B (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Smt. Nivedita Biswas Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao Date of hearing: 24/02/2021 Date of pronouncement: 30/08/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: All these appeals filed by the…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)., Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1121/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1745/H/2016 and 1120, 1121 & 1663/H/2017 AY.: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner of Vs. KSK Energy Company Income-tax, Circle – Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. 2(1), Hyderabad. PAN – AACCK9414B (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Smt. Nivedita Biswas Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao Date of hearing: 24/02/2021 Date of pronouncement: 30/08/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: All these appeals filed by the…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)., Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited., Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1120/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1745/H/2016 and 1120, 1121 & 1663/H/2017 AY.: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner of Vs. KSK Energy Company Income-tax, Circle – Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. 2(1), Hyderabad. PAN – AACCK9414B (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Smt. Nivedita Biswas Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao Date of hearing: 24/02/2021 Date of pronouncement: 30/08/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: All these appeals filed by the…

DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1745/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1745/H/2016 and 1120, 1121 & 1663/H/2017 AY.: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner of Vs. KSK Energy Company Income-tax, Circle – Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. 2(1), Hyderabad. PAN – AACCK9414B (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Smt. Nivedita Biswas Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao Date of hearing: 24/02/2021 Date of pronouncement: 30/08/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: All these appeals filed by the…

Mandava Holdings Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 971/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Mandava Holdings Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 16(2), Pan – Aafcm 4964M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A) – 4, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 09/03/2018 For Ay 2013-14 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act”, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Hyderabad, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Is Perverse, Illegal & Unsustainable On Facts & In Law.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…n record. 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of lower authorities and submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the revenue by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., Vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is observed that the :- 4 -: M/s Mandava Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. assessee has invested in the subsidiary companies which yielded exempt income. Therefore, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investmen…

Hindustan Associated Engineers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 11(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 3758/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Sh. Rajnish Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e AO has recorded all these facts in the assessment order which goes to show that the AO has recorded its satisfaction of not accepting the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee. Hence, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Vs. CIT 402 ITR 640 relied upon by the Ld. AR will not help the case of the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27.08.2021 (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27th August, 2021 *Kavita Arora, Sr. PS 10 ITA.No.3758/Del./2018 Hindustan Associated Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Copy to 1. The appell…