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 367,359 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

DCIT Cen Cir 5(2), Mumbai vs. Satra Properties (India) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 5528/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri M.Balaganeshdcit, Central Circle-5(2), M/S Satra Properties (India) Ltd. Room No.1908, 19Th Floor, Dev Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Andheri Air India Building, Fire Station, S.V. Road, Andheri Nariman Point, (E), Mumbai-400058. Vs. Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaace1835C Appellant Respondent : Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Dr) Appellant By Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2021 Order

For Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…me Tax Act, 1961 relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chemin vest Ltd. overlooking the fact that the decision has been superseded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT(20 18) 402 ITR 640.?" 3. We have heard the contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of this case. We noted that that the Assessing Officer while framing assessment has made disallowance by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter ‘the Rules’). He invoked rule 8D (2)(ii) of the Rules and…

Essar Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, additional ground No

ITA 1942/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 43BSection 92BSection 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Aaradhana Realities ACIT 6(2)(2), Ltd. (Formerly known as Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Investments Ltd.) M.K. Road, Manickam Complex, Mumbai - 400020 Ground Floor, Vs. 1/3, General Patters Road, Chennai, Tamilnadu- 600 002 PAN: AABCE0686Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, A.R Revenue by : Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R. Date of Hearing : 11.12.2020 Date o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Kanishka Healthcare Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3448/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

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

Section 14A

…tment in question. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. 272 CTR 282 and Cheminvest Ltd. reported at 371 ITR 23 as well as the decision of the Apex Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. 402 ITR 640 (SC). Thus, the Ld. AR relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is clear from the records that that there was no exempt income attributable in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, applying Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not appropriate on part of Assessing Officer.…

DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh vs. Unipro Techno Infrastructure Private Limited, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 149/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Dahiya, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ere distinguishable from the taxpayers, ignoring the principal of apportionment regardless of exempt income laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Walfort Share and stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC) and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 91 Taxmann.com 154(SC). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the legislative intent expressed in CBDT's Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014, which explicitly states that expenses relatable to earning of exempt income have to be considered for disallowance irrespective of the fact whether any such income has been earned during the F.Y. or not as confirme…

Nirpan Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3941/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Nirpan Securities Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax 301-308, Bhagwati House Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai Veera Desai Road Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400 058 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn1329A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…t exceed exempt income. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments reported in 372 ITR 694 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640. It is not in dispute that assessee had made voluntarily disallowance in the return of income u/s.14A of the Act in the sum of Rs.21,28,837/-. Since the exempt income earned by the assessee is only Rs.54,000/-, the disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income by following the aforesaid judicial precedents, even if the said…

M.A.Alagappan, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 908/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 907 & 908/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri M.A. Alagappan, The Acit, 10, Chittaranjan Road, V. Corporate Circle 3(1) Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aacpa9628C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G.Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 260A

…eciating that there is no direct nexus between the expenses debited in to the profit & loss account and dividend income earned for the year. The ld.AR further referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT, 402 ITR 640, submitted that unless the AO records satisfaction having regard to the books of accounts of the assessee as required u/s.14A(2) of the Act that suo moto disallowance or no disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act was not correct, he cannot invoke Rule 8D of the rules to compute 6 I.T.A. Nos.907 & 908/CHNY/2019 disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. The…

M.A.Alagappan, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 907/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 907 & 908/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri M.A. Alagappan, The Acit, 10, Chittaranjan Road, V. Corporate Circle 3(1) Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aacpa9628C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G.Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 260A

…eciating that there is no direct nexus between the expenses debited in to the profit & loss account and dividend income earned for the year. The ld.AR further referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT, 402 ITR 640, submitted that unless the AO records satisfaction having regard to the books of accounts of the assessee as required u/s.14A(2) of the Act that suo moto disallowance or no disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act was not correct, he cannot invoke Rule 8D of the rules to compute 6 I.T.A. Nos.907 & 908/CHNY/2019 disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. The…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 7(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. M/S United Breweries Ltd., Srikakulam District

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

ITA 1434/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojaridy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. ….Appellant Vs. M/S. United Breweries Limited, (Successor To M/S. United Millennium Breweries Ltd.) Bantupalli Village, Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam District. Andhra Pradesh. ……Respondent. Pan Aabcg 4480G Assessee By: Shri B.K. Panda,Cit (D.R) Revenue By: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate.

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Panda,CIT (D.R)For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…acts of the present case on hand in proper perspective and decided in favour of the assessee which is improper. According to him, the CIT (Appeals) ought to have consider the latest Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT 402 ITR 640 (SC). On the other hand, 3 the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the same loan which was availed in earlier year was outstanding in this assessment year also and the facts of the present assessment year is same as in earlier assessment years 2007-08 to 2009- 10 and the order in ITA Nos. 512, 513, 514/Viz/2014 Dt.21.04.2017 has rea…

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner

In the result, the order of the

ITA/404/2016HC Karnataka09 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 35

…Rules and disallowed a sum of Rs.15,80,810/- and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the tribunal has affirmed the same. It is also submitted that in view of decision of the Supreme Court in 'MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. VS. CIT', (2018) 402 ITR 640, the Rule 8D of the Rules applies for the Assessment Year 2009-10 and the Assessing Officer has rightly invoked Rule 8D of the Rules to disallow the expenditure incurred for earning the exempt income. It is also submitted that Supreme Court in the case of GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. supra has held 13 that disallowance unde…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd

In the result, the order of the

ITA/468/2016HC Karnataka09 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 35

…Rules and disallowed a sum of Rs.15,80,810/- and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the tribunal has affirmed the same. It is also submitted that in view of decision of the Supreme Court in 'MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. VS. CIT', (2018) 402 ITR 640, the Rule 8D of the Rules applies for the Assessment Year 2009-10 and the Assessing Officer has rightly invoked Rule 8D of the Rules to disallow the expenditure incurred for earning the exempt income. It is also submitted that Supreme Court in the case of GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. supra has held 13 that disallowance unde…

M/S. Oil Industry Development Board, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5591/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Oil Industry Development Vs Acit Board Circle-52(1) 301, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, New Delhi Aaaj00032A (Respondent) (Appellant) Acit Vs Oil Industry Development Circle-52(1) Board New Delhi 301, World Trade Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi Aaaj00032A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(xii)Section 37(1)

…lied upon the order of the CIT(A). The Ld. AR further relied upon the following decisions: i) Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi HC) ii) CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1 iii) Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) 11. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. In order to attract the applicability of section 14A of the Act, an assessee has to incur expenditure. In the present case the income pertains to income on dividend, which by no stretch of imagination can be treated to be an expenditure to attract…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oil Industries Development Board, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4074/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Oil Industry Development Vs Acit Board Circle-52(1) 301, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, New Delhi Aaaj00032A (Respondent) (Appellant) Acit Vs Oil Industry Development Circle-52(1) Board New Delhi 301, World Trade Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi Aaaj00032A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(xii)Section 37(1)

…lied upon the order of the CIT(A). The Ld. AR further relied upon the following decisions: i) Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi HC) ii) CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1 iii) Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) 11. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. In order to attract the applicability of section 14A of the Act, an assessee has to incur expenditure. In the present case the income pertains to income on dividend, which by no stretch of imagination can be treated to be an expenditure to attract…

Shri Hari Poddar, Erode vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 142/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.142/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr.K.Raghu, CAFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anita, JCIT
Section 14A

…sessee has not incurred any expenditure in relation to the impugned income. The AO without recording due satisfaction as required u/s.14A as well as elucidated in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT reported in 402 ITR 640 and without any material, merely, disallowed Rs.1,68,189/- and hence pleaded to allow the appeal. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that since the assessee has not made any disallowance u/s.14A, the orders of the lower authorities are justified and thus supported them. :- 3 -: 4. We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant mat…

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

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

ITA 2227/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…no disallowance under section 14A is to be made where the shares are held as ‘stock-in-trade’. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions to further buttress his contentions: (1) Maxopp Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT,402 ITR 640 (SC) (2) India Advantage Securities Ltd., 380 ITR 471 (3) PCIT vs. Punjab & Sind Bank in Income Tax Appeal No.904/2019 decided on 16/10/2019 by Delhi High Court. (4) Asstt. CIT vs. UCO Bank, ITA No.1615/Kol/2016 decided on 21/08/2018. (5) Punjab National Bank vs. ACIT, ITA No.5481/Del/2014 decided on 03/01/2019 (6) IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT, ITA N…

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

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

ITA 2229/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…no disallowance under section 14A is to be made where the shares are held as ‘stock-in-trade’. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions to further buttress his contentions: (1) Maxopp Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT,402 ITR 640 (SC) (2) India Advantage Securities Ltd., 380 ITR 471 (3) PCIT vs. Punjab & Sind Bank in Income Tax Appeal No.904/2019 decided on 16/10/2019 by Delhi High Court. (4) Asstt. CIT vs. UCO Bank, ITA No.1615/Kol/2016 decided on 21/08/2018. (5) Punjab National Bank vs. ACIT, ITA No.5481/Del/2014 decided on 03/01/2019 (6) IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT, ITA N…

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

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

ITA 1805/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…no disallowance under section 14A is to be made where the shares are held as ‘stock-in-trade’. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions to further buttress his contentions: (1) Maxopp Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT,402 ITR 640 (SC) (2) India Advantage Securities Ltd., 380 ITR 471 (3) PCIT vs. Punjab & Sind Bank in Income Tax Appeal No.904/2019 decided on 16/10/2019 by Delhi High Court. (4) Asstt. CIT vs. UCO Bank, ITA No.1615/Kol/2016 decided on 21/08/2018. (5) Punjab National Bank vs. ACIT, ITA No.5481/Del/2014 decided on 03/01/2019 (6) IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT, ITA N…

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

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

ITA 1804/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…no disallowance under section 14A is to be made where the shares are held as ‘stock-in-trade’. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions to further buttress his contentions: (1) Maxopp Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT,402 ITR 640 (SC) (2) India Advantage Securities Ltd., 380 ITR 471 (3) PCIT vs. Punjab & Sind Bank in Income Tax Appeal No.904/2019 decided on 16/10/2019 by Delhi High Court. (4) Asstt. CIT vs. UCO Bank, ITA No.1615/Kol/2016 decided on 21/08/2018. (5) Punjab National Bank vs. ACIT, ITA No.5481/Del/2014 decided on 03/01/2019 (6) IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT, ITA N…

Param Shubham Vanijya Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 5(2), Kolkata

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2501/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income-tax Rules without correctly appreciating the facts of the case of the appellant company and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). 4. That the order passed by CIT(A) is bad in law as same has been passed without discussing and appreciating the contentions and submissions of the appellant company.” 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, Sri Arvind Agarwal submitted that the ad-hoc disallowance made on motor car running expenses and miscellaneous expenses are bad in law as…

Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rare Enterprises, Mumbai

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

ITA 1562/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S. C. TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Dihashis (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) JT. CIT(OSD), CC-7(1) बिधम/ M/s. Rare Enterprises R. No. 676B 6th Floor, 151 Nariman Bhavan Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Nariman Point, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAEFR8176J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Dihashis (DR) Assessee by: Shri S. C. Tiwari सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 05/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 28/10/2…

Mcdowell Holdings Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands party allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 796/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.R Pradeep, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 14ASection 154Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 McDowell Holdings Ltd., Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Level 12, UB Towers, UB City, Ward-4(1)(3), 24k Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 001. PAN – AAECH 1162 E. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri K.R Pradeep, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 06.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 27.10.2020 O R D E R PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against the order date…