Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

Asst CIT Circle-3 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bajaj Eco-Tech Products Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Acit - 3(1)(1), M/S Bajaj Eco-Tech Products Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Vs. Limited, 2Nd Floor, Bajaj Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bhavan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021

…2012-13 8 ACIT -3(1)(1) Vs. M/s Bajaj Eco-Tech Products disallowance of the interest expenditure. At the same time, we are of the considered view, that pursuant to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC), as the dominant purpose for which the investment into shares is made by an assessee may not be relevant, therefore, the claim of the assessee that no administrative expenses could be attributed qua the investments made by the assessee in its wholly owned subsidiary company cannot be accepted. But then, as it is a matter of fact borne from t…

Puja Trades & Investments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (2)92), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Puja Traders & Investments Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 16Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax -3(2)(2) Atlanta, 209, Jamnalal Bajaj Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan No. Aabcp1659A (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Nahata, A.R Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/07/2021

…be vacated. In support of his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R had relied on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Anr. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) and Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). Also, support was drawn by the ld. A.R from a host of judicial pronouncements to which our attention was drawn. Alternatively, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the assessee had sufficient own funds and interest free funds amounting to Rs. 10.93 crores, viz. (i). Share capital of Rs. 7.95 crore; and (ii). Reserves & Surplus of Rs. 2.9…

ACIT 8 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Retails Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 176/Mum/2020 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2016-17) The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Reliance Retail Ltd. 3R D Income Tax, Floor, Court House, Room No. 624, 6 Th Floor, Aayakar फनाभ/ Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Marg, Dhobi Talao, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 002 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aabcr1718E अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Cit Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Nimesh Vora, Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Revenue Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-14, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-14/It-111/18-19 Vide Dated 24.10.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8(1)(1), Mumbai (In Short Acit / Ao) For The A.Y. 2016-17 Vide Order Dated 25.12.2018 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). M/S Reliance Retail Ltd.; Ay 16-17 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Deleting The Disallowance Of Expenses Relatable To Exempt Income Made By Ao By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act Read With Section 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter The ‘Rules’). For This, Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…ision of various High courts deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. M/s Reliance Retail ltd.; AY 16-17 4. We noted that this issue is also covered by the decision that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC), wherein it is held that once, there is no exempt income, no disallowance under section 14A Read with Rule 8D of the rules can be made. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 5. In the Result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.07.2021. (भन…

Hdfc Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Hdfc Bank Limited Acit-2(3)(1) Hdfc Bank House Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013

…CIT 2(3), ITA No. 6123/Mum/2016, dated 08.07.2020. Further, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the Tribunal in its aforesaid order had after drawing support from the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC), had held, that as the assessee was a bank, therefore, investments held by it as stock-in-trade were not to be considered for the purpose of working of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, irrespective of the fact whether exempt income was derived from such investments or not. It was further submitted by the ld. A.R that the Tribunal in its afor…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Centralcircle-6(4), Mumbai vs. Indiabulls Integrated Services Limited, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Shri Shamim Yahyadcit,Central Circle-6(4) Indiabulls Integrated Services Room No.1925, Air India Building Limited 19Th Floor, Nariman Point [Formerly Known As Indiabulls Mumbai-400 021 Wholesale Services Limited] Vs. M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001

…owance to exempt income earned as under:- 4.5.1 The issue of restriction of the disallowance under section 14A 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 8D of the Rules and hol…

M/S. Indiabulls Integrated Services(Formerly Know As M/S. Indiabulls Wholesale Services Ltd), Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Shri Shamim Yahyadcit,Central Circle-6(4) Indiabulls Integrated Services Room No.1925, Air India Building Limited 19Th Floor, Nariman Point [Formerly Known As Indiabulls Mumbai-400 021 Wholesale Services Limited] Vs. M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001

…owance to exempt income earned as under:- 4.5.1 The issue of restriction of the disallowance under section 14A 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 8D of the Rules and hol…

Dr. Ashwin B Mehta, Mumbai vs. Joint CIT Range 16 (2), Mumbai

In the result appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

…d in law the disallowance u/s I4A read with rule 8D ought to be restricted to Rs. 1,33,909/-.” 5. However learned CIT(Appeals) was not convinced. He referred to the decision of honourable Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT reported in 402 ITR 640 and observed that it has put rest to many controversies under sec I4A of the Act. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if expenditure is incurred on earning the dividend income that much of the expenditure which is attributable to the dividend income has to be disallowed and cannot be treated as business income. Thereafter Learned CIT(Appeals…

DCIT CC - 8 (4), Mumbai vs. Vina Viren Ahuja, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 4930/मुं/2018 (िन.व.2013-14) Dcit, Cc-8(4), Room No. 676, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ...... अपीलाथ( /Appellant Mumbai-400020. बनाम Vs. Smt Vina Viren Ahuja 1, Neelkanth Tirth, Road No. 6, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan: Aafpa4893E ..... )ितवाद+/Respondent अपीलाथ( ,ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi )ितवाद+ ,ारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क- ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2021 घोषणा क- ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 20.06.2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Apart From The Business Of Export Of Home Furnishings & Sale Of Handicrafts

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “एस एम सी” , मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI "ी "वकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं. 4930/मुं/2018 (िन.व.2013-14) DCIT, CC-8(4), Room No. 676, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ...... अपीलाथ( /Appellant Mumbai-400020. बनाम Vs. Smt Vina Viren Ahuja 1, Neelkanth Tirth, Road No. 6, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. PAN: AAFPA4893E ..... )ितवाद+/Respondent अपीलाथ( ,ारा/ Appellant by : Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi )ितवाद+ ,ारा/Respondent by : None सुनवाई क- ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 17/06/2021 घोषणा क- ितिथ/ Date of pronou…

J. M Fianancial & Investment Consultancy Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT(OSD)-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blej.M. Financial & Investment V. Acit (Osd)– 3 Consultancy Services P. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 5Th Floor, 5B Cnergy Mumbai - 400020 Appasaheb Marathe Marg Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacj1237H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Shivram Department By : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J.M. Financial & Investment v. ACIT (OSD)– 3 Consultancy Services P. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 5th Floor, 5B Cnergy Mumbai - 400020 Appasaheb Marathe Marg Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 PAN: AAACJ1237H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K. Shivram Department by : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon Date of Hearing : 09.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 25.06.2021 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against ord…

DCIT, CC- 8(1), Mumbai vs. Nirshilp Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

…atisfaction with cogent reasons are required to be recorded in terms of section 14A(2) of the Act read with Rule 8D(1) of the Rules. This issue is no longer res integra by the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC) in para 41 thereon. We find that the ld CITA had also granted relief on this count by placing reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd vs CIT reported in 86 taxmann.com 49 (Delhi), on which, we find no infirmity. Hence the Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 15. The third ground rais…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Capital Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

…iled to record any objective satisfaction as to how the suomoto disallowance made by the assessee is wrong. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further in support to his submissions also placed reliance on the following decisions: - i. Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [402 ITR 640 (SC)] ii. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing company Ltd. v. DCIT [394 ITR 449 (SC)] iii. PCIT v. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd., [400 ITR 217 (Bom)] iv. H.T. Media Ltd., v. PCIT [399 ITR 576 (Del.)] 8. With regard to the additional ground No.2 of grounds of appeal i.e., in respect of deduction of education cess on income tax and secondary a…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Capital Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

…iled to record any objective satisfaction as to how the suomoto disallowance made by the assessee is wrong. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further in support to his submissions also placed reliance on the following decisions: - i. Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [402 ITR 640 (SC)] ii. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing company Ltd. v. DCIT [394 ITR 449 (SC)] iii. PCIT v. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd., [400 ITR 217 (Bom)] iv. H.T. Media Ltd., v. PCIT [399 ITR 576 (Del.)] 8. With regard to the additional ground No.2 of grounds of appeal i.e., in respect of deduction of education cess on income tax and secondary a…

Tata Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

…iled to record any objective satisfaction as to how the suomoto disallowance made by the assessee is wrong. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further in support to his submissions also placed reliance on the following decisions: - i. Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [402 ITR 640 (SC)] ii. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing company Ltd. v. DCIT [394 ITR 449 (SC)] iii. PCIT v. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd., [400 ITR 217 (Bom)] iv. H.T. Media Ltd., v. PCIT [399 ITR 576 (Del.)] 8. With regard to the additional ground No.2 of grounds of appeal i.e., in respect of deduction of education cess on income tax and secondary a…

Tata Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

…iled to record any objective satisfaction as to how the suomoto disallowance made by the assessee is wrong. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further in support to his submissions also placed reliance on the following decisions: - i. Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [402 ITR 640 (SC)] ii. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing company Ltd. v. DCIT [394 ITR 449 (SC)] iii. PCIT v. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd., [400 ITR 217 (Bom)] iv. H.T. Media Ltd., v. PCIT [399 ITR 576 (Del.)] 8. With regard to the additional ground No.2 of grounds of appeal i.e., in respect of deduction of education cess on income tax and secondary a…

DCIT CC 3(2) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Vivek Mehrotra, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

…(Appeals) grossly erred in deleting the disallowance by holding that shares/securities are held as stock in trade. In support of such contention he strongly relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC). 13. In rebuttal, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, the assessee maintains two separate portfolios, investment and trading. He submitted, the assessee has not claimed any expenditure for investment portfolio. He submitted, while investment is shown in personal account trading in shares is Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 sho…