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

Jindal Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 13(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1225/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shailesh Kumar, Sr. DR

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

…the explanation of the assessee was not satisfactory in respect of expenses to earn exempt income. He placed reliance on the decision in the case ofGodrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT [2017] 394 ITR 4495 and Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640. 5. Per contra, it is the submission of the ld. DR that the very act of the Assessing Officer seeking explanation of the assessee as to why the disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D should not be made, itself shows that the Assessing Officer formed the requisite satisfaction and therefore, the assessee cannot contend that there was no satisfac…

Addl.CIT, Range-4, New Delhi vs. Ht Media Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4697/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ht Media Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi Range-4, Marg, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch3165P

For Appellant: Sh. V. P. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 14A

…he observation of the ITAT on the latter aspect, i.e. exclusion of tax exempt income derived from a strategic investments, is not a correct view in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2018) 402 ITR 640. Accordingly, the observations of the ITAT on this aspect are set aside. However, its observations with respect to the calculation of disallowance under Section 14A being confined to investments that derived tax exempt income are valid in the light of the Division Bench ruling in ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT, (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del). In view of the a…

Ht Media Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addlcit, Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4583/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. V. P. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 14A

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Ptc India Financial Services Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1267/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 36(1)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1267/Del/2015 (A.Y 2010-11) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) DCIT Vs PTC India Financial Services Circle-19(2), Ltd.2nd Floor, NBCC Tower, New Delhi 15 Bhikaji Cama Place New Delhi AAECP0501C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(DR) Respondent by Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv and Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv Date of Hearing 21.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement 19 .02.2021 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue…

Amit Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 127/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 14A

…n light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT 61 Taxman.com 118 3 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Holcim Ltd. 57 Taxman 28 and also in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 402 ITR 640. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 18th Day of February, 2021 in presence of both the parties. (B. R. R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 18/02/2021 R. Naheed *…

ITO, Ward- 3(4), New Delhi vs. Athena Energy Ventures Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6328/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 14A

…e CIT(A) has given a detailed finding and there is no need to interfere with the same in light of the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court. In fact, the issue is covered by the decision of the Apex Court decision in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 402 ITR 640. Thus, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 4. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 17th Day of February, 2021 in presence of Ld. DR. (B. R. R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17/02/2021 R. Naheed *…

ACIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Hathway Cable & Daracom Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3980/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Acit-12(2)(2) Vs. M/S. Hathway Cable & Room No.262/145, 1St Floor Datacom Ltd., Rahejas, 4Th Floor Aayakar Bhawan Churchgate, Corner Of Main Avenue & Mumbai-400020 V.P.Road, Santacruz (W) Mumbai – 400 054 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc68148 (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Gurbinder Singh Assessee By Shri Nimesh Vora Date Of Hearing 02/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 17/02/2021

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…sallowance of indirect expenses u/s.14A to the tune of Rs. 1,69,35,716/- by considering 0.5% of average value of investments. We find the issue is now very well settled in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640 and other decisions wherein it has been categorically held that when there is no exempt income derived by the assessee during the year under consideration, the applicability of Section 14A of the Act does not come into operation. Respectfully following the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) granting relief to the as…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Quest Global Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd

In the result, we don to find any

ITA/133/2015HC Karnataka15 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 260Section 73

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.133 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-12(2), RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001. .... APPELLANTS (BY MR. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD., SECOND FLOOR, PRIMOSE 7B EMBASSEY TECH VILLAGE SARJAPURA-MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD DEVARABEES…

Il & Fs Transportation Networks Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Range - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4177/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodil & Fs Transportation Networks Asstt. Commissioner Of Limited, The Il & Fs Financial Income-Tax, Range -14(2)(1), Center, Plot No.C-22, Room No. Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. 460, 4Th Floor, G Block, Bandra- Road, Marine Lines, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 Pan – Aabcc5460A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit -14(2)(1), M/S Il & Fs Transportation Network 432, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd., Il & Fs Financial Centre, 8Th Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Floor, C-22, G Block, B.K.C. Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Addl. CIT (2016) 97 CCH 219 (Mad) and by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in PCIT Vs. IL & FS Development Company Ltd. (2017) 399 ITR 483 (Del). At the same time, we in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) are unable to subscribe to the observation of the CIT(A), wherein he had inter alia directed the A.O to consider only those investments made in non-subsidiary companies which had yielded dividend income for the purpose of disallowance under Sec. 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii). Accordingly, the aforesaid observation/direction of the CIT(A) is expunge…

DCIT (Ltu-2), Mumbai vs. Idbi Bank Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 3849/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Sreekar, DR

Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2015-16 IDBI Bank Ltd., DCIT – LTU (2), 22nd Floor, IDBI Tower, WTC Vs. 29th Floor, Centre No. 1, World Complex, Cuffe Parade, Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400 005 PAN No. AABCI 8842 G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 DCIT – LTU (2), IDBI Bank Ltd., 29th Floor, Centre No. 1, World Vs. 22nd Floor, IDBI Tower, WTC Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Mumbai-400 005. PAN No. AABCI 8842 G Ap…

Idbi Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 3394/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Sreekar, DR

Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Tarini Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Rourkela vs. ACIT, Rourkela

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 197/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 14A

…e. Ld A.R. has placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: i) Sesa Goa Ltd vs JCIT, 60 sot 121 (Pan) ii) JK Investors Ltd vs ACIT (ITA No.7858/Mum/2011) iii) Joint Investments Pvt Ltd vs CIT, 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) iv) Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC) v) DCIT vs Integrated Coal Mining Ltd (ITA No.1031/Kol/2017). 63. Furthermore, ld A.R. submitted that therefore, if the AO, having regards to the assessee is not satisfied with the amount of the claim of the assessee, in respect of such expenditure in relation to exempt income, which does not form part of the total income, as per the provis…

Il & Fs Transportation Networks Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.CIT-14(2) (Earlier Addl.CIT, RG. 10(1)), Mumbai

ITA 2927/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.2927 & 2928/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Il & Fs Transportation Networks Addl. Commissioner Of Limited, The Il & Fs Financial Income-Tax, Range -14(2), Center, Plot No.C-22, Room No. [Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Range-10(1), Mumbai] 460, 4Th Floor, G Block, Bandra- Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aabcc5460A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, D.R

Section 14A

…ITA Nos.2927 & 2928, 3145 & 3146/Mum/2018, A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 IL & FS Transportation Networks Limited Vs. Addl. CIT, Range 14(2) 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member ITA Nos.2927 & 2928/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) IL & FS Transportation Networks Addl. Commissioner of Limited, The IL & FS Financial Income-tax, Range -14(2), Center, Plot No.C-22, Room No. [Earlier Addl. commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Range-10(1), Mumbai] 460, 4th Floor, G Block, Bandra- Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Karv…

Rafique A Malik, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3407/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 14A

…4A of the Act r.w.r 8D(2)(iii) is concerned, we are not in agreement with the conclusion drawn by learned CIT(A) on this issue. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC) . We, therefore, are inclined to set aside the order of learned CIT(A) following the ratio laid down in the above decision and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made u/s 14A of the Act. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st January, 2021. (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT…

M/S Kodagu District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the Assessing

ITA/318/2016HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 14ASection 260

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.318 OF 2016 BETWEEN: M/S. KODAGU DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD, REP. BY SRI. SHIVA KUMARA SWAMY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER GENERAL THIMMAYYA CIRCLE MADIKERI-571201. .... APPELLANT (BY MR. V. CHANDRASEKHAR, ADV., WITH MR. S. ANNAMALAI, ADV., FOR MR. M. LAVA, ADV.,) AND: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN BELUR ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR HASSAN-573201. ... RESPONDENT (BY MR…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/S Novell Software Development (India) Pvt.Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal

ITA/271/2017HC Karnataka16 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 40Section 9

…he revenue on the decision in the case of KINGFISHER FINVEST LTD., supra, is concerned, suffice it to say that reliance was placed in the aforesaid decision on the decision in MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI' (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). It is pertinent to note that the decision MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD, supra, does not deal with the issue of applicability of Section 14A of the Act. The subsequent decisions of Madras High Court as well as Delhi High Court, namely in CHETTINAD LOGISTICS (P) LTD., supra and CHEMINVEST LTD., supra, have been affirmed by the Supreme Court…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Vijaya Bank

In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA/16/2017HC Karnataka15 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 14Section 14ASection 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.16 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU-560085. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU-560085. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND K.V., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S VIJAYA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, CENTRAL ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT 41/2, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. PAN: AAACV 4791J …RESPONDENT (B…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Premier Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3554/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumardcit- 3(2)(2), M/S Premier Ltd. Room No.674, 6Th Floor, 58, Nariman Bhavan, Nariman Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaact5523G Vs. Appellant Respondent : Ms. Shreeleela Pardeshi (Dr) Appellant By Revenue By : Ms. Shefali (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2021 Order

For Respondent: Ms. Shreeleela Pardeshi (DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT- 3(2)(2), M/s Premier Ltd. Room No.674, 6th Floor, 58, Nariman Bhavan, Nariman Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACT5523G Vs. Appellant Respondent : Ms. Shreeleela Pardeshi (DR) Appellant by Revenue by : Ms. Shefali (AR) Date of Hearing : 03.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 12.01.2021 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT; 1. This appeal by revenue is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai [fo…

Chalet Hotels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3747/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumarchalet Hotels Limited, Dcit, Cc-4(2), 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Raheja Tower, Plot No.C-30, Opp. Sidbi, Bandra Kurla Building, Nariman Point, Complex, Bandra-E, Mumbai-400021. Vs. Mumbai-400051 Pan: Aaack0411E Appellant Respondent : Shri Madhur Agarwal (Ar Appellant By Revenue By : Shri V. Sreekar (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2021 Order

For Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chalet Hotels Limited, DCIT, CC-4(2), 1918, 19th Floor, Air India Raheja Tower, Plot No.C-30, Opp. SIDBI, Bandra Kurla Building, Nariman Point, Complex, Bandra-E, Mumbai-400021. Vs. Mumbai-400051 PAN: AAACK0411E Appellant Respondent : Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR Appellant by Revenue by : Shri V. Sreekar (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing : 03.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 11.01.2021 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT; 1. This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of Co…

DCIT, 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Synergy Applicances Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 291/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit- 3(3)(2), M/S Synergy Applicances Pvt. Room No.628, 6Th Floor, Ltd., 171-C, Mittal Court, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai 400021. Vs. Pan: Aaacr1840E Appellant Respondent : Shri Anand Mohan (Cit-Dr) Appellant By Revenue By : Shri Mayank Chauhan (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2021 Order

For Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…7/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) and CIT(A) deleted the 2 ITA No. 291 Mum 2019-M/s Synergy Applicances Pvt. Ltd. disallowance by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). 6. We noted that once there is no exempt income, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra), wherein it is held that the disallowance under section 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the Rules cannot exceed the exempt income. Since, in the present case ther…