Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 14(2)1, Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

…013-14. The copies of the orders have been placed on record. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the fact that the dominant object of the investments has lost relevance in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. (402 ITR 640). Having heard rival submissions, our adjudication to the subject matter of appeal would be as given in succeeding paragraphs. 3. The material facts in AY 2014-15 are that the assessee earned exempt income of Rs.212.65 Lacs but did not offer any suo-moto disallowance. The Ld. AO, applying Rule 8D(2)(iii), computed indirect expense disallowance of…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Ltu(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

…al filed by the assesee stands allowed for statistical purpose. 11. Appeal for AY 2008-09. Grounds of appeal read as under :- On jurisdiction 1.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that after decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. (402 ITR 640), disallowance u/s 14A is automatic in all cases and hence even where disallowance was deleted, on AO being satisfied, based on directions of Hon'ble ITAT, the same constitutes a mistake apparent from records which can be rectified u/s 154. 1.2 The CIT{A) even otherwise failed to appreciate that the disallowance u/s 14A is a highly legal and deba…

Mirah Dekor Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 7414/Mum/2018 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 7415/Mum/2018 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2014-15) आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 7416/Mum/2018 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2013-14) Mirah Dekor Pvt. Ltd The Dy. Commissioner Of 208, Parvati Industrial Estate, Income Tax, Circle 2(1), फनाभ/ 8 Th Sunmill Compound, Lower Parel Pratishtha Bhavan, (W), Mumbai-13 Floor, Mumbai-2 Vs. (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aabcm4262A अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Ms. Leena Srivastava, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय ससिंह, उऩाध्मऺ के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals Of The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-48, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal Nos. Cit(A)-48/I.T-116, 135 &136 &/Dccc- 2(1)/2017-18 Vide Dated 15.10.2018 & 31.10.2018. The Assessments Were Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc 2(1)

…ntum of dividend, which was received and claimed as exempt. On this, the learned Counsel for the assessee as well as learned CIT DR agreed that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC), wherein it is held that disallowance of section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules cannot exceed the exempt income claimed by assessee. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income only. Hence, this common ground of the assessee in all the three appeals is partly allowed. 12. The only i…

Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

…the Rules. Non-recording of such mandatory satisfaction on an objective basis with cogent reasons would make the entire addition illegal. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Maxoop Investments reported in 402 ITR 640. Since, the disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act by the ld. AO is hereby directed to be deleted on the aforesaid technical aspect, the other elaborate arguments advanced by the ld. AR by making various propositions need not be gone into, as adjudication of the same would be merely academic in nature. Accordingly, the grounds raised with regard to…

Indusind Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2013-14 Indusind Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income 8Th Floor, Tower One, Tax- Range 2(3)(2), One Indiabulls Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Mumbai Elphinstone Road-West, Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aaaci1314G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Viksit Bhargava (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Subramaniyam (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/08/2021

…or regular business purpose, they have to be excluded for computing disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D. In support of such contention, learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). Further, he submitted, while deciding identical issue in assessee’s own case in assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13, the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and other decisions held that no disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D can be made in re…

Shardul Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Range 3 (3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.354 & 355/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17) M/S Shardul Securities Ltd. Dcit Range- 3(3)(1) बिाम/ 6Th Floor, R. No. 609 G-12, Tulsiani Chambers Free Press Road 212 Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-7141-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 28/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee In Aforesaid Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 & 2016-17 Is Disallowance U/S 14A. The Facts Are Pari-Materia The Same In Both The Years & Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 2. The Ld Ar Submitted That Ld. Ao Did Not Recorded Objective Satisfaction Before Applying Rule 8D & Therefore, The Disallowance

…the assessee. It is only thereafter that the provisions of Section 14A(2) and (3) read with Rule 8D of the Rules or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing, would become applicable. 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. 6. Applying the aforesaid principles to the fact of the pr…

Future Consumer Enterprise Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Future Consumer Enterprises Ltd., V. Acit, Ward – 9(3)(2) Ground Floor, Knowledge House Aayakar Bhavan Off Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Road M.K. Road Shyam Nagar, Jogeshwari(E) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 060 Pan: Aabcs0279B (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – 9(3)(2) V. M/S. Future Consumer Ltd., Room No. 418, 4Th Floor {Formerly Known As M/S. Future Aayakar Bhavan Consumer Enterprises Ltd.,} M.K. Road Ground Floor, Knowledge House Mumbai – 400 020 Off Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Road Shyam Nagar, Jogeshwari(E) Mumbai – 400 060 Pan: Aabcs0279B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department By : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

…objective satisfaction as to how the suomoto disallowance made by the assessee is wrong. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further in support of her submissions placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [402 ITR 640 (SC)]. 5. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer. 6. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the decisions relied on. It is not in dispute that the assessee has furnished a detailed working on suomoto disallowance of ₹.5,33,179/- u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of I.T. Rules. The detai…

Future Corporate Resources Ltd(Now Merged With Suhani Trading and Investment Consultants Private Limited), Mumbai vs. ACIT -9(3)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Future Corporate Resources Ltd., V. Acit, Ward – 9(3)(2) Aayakar Bhavan {Now Merged With Suhani Trading & Investment Consultants Pvt. Ltd.,} M.K. Road Ground Floor, Knowledge House Mumbai – 400 020 Off Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Road Shyam Nagar, Jogeshwari(E) Mumbai – 400 060 Pan: Aajcs3979E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – 9(3)(2) V. M/S. Future Corporate Resources Ltd., Room No. 418, 4Th Floor Ground Floor, Knowledge House Aayakar Bhavan Off Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Road M.K. Road Shyam Nagar, Jogeshwari(E) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 060 Pan: Aajcs3979E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department By : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

…objective satisfaction as to how the suomoto disallowance made by the assessee is wrong. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further in support of her submissions placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [402 ITR 640 (SC)]. 5. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer. 6. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the decisions relied on. It is not in dispute that the assessee has furnished a detailed working on suomoto disallowance of ₹.1,12,58,018/- u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of I.T. Rules. The de…