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 367,341 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

Mufg Bank Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation) Circle-2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7895/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shr Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 37(1)Section 44C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) MUFG Bank Ltd, Vs. ACIT (International Taxation), 5th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, NH-8, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AABCT3880D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Adv Shri Hiten Chande, Adv Shri Surender Bist, CA Revenue by: Shr Surender Pal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 27/07/2020 Date of pronouncement 16/10/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee aga…

Punjab National Bank vs. Addl. CIT, Range-14

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 614/DEL/2006[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2020AY 2004-2005

Bench: Ms Sushma Chowla & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) & Punjab National Bank Vs. Dcit Ho Accounts & Taxation Circle - 14(1) Deptt. New Delhi Ho : 5-Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan No. Aaacp 0165 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. Sampath, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amit Jain, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/10/2020 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) And Punjab National Bank Vs. DCIT HO Accounts & Taxation Circle - 14(1) Deptt. New Delhi HO : 5-Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. PAN No. AAACP 0165 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri K. Sampath, Adv. Revenue by Shri Amit Jain, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 29/09/2020 Date of Pronouncement: 15/10/2020 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 27.12.2005 & 19.10.2009 of…

Ifci Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2982/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…he Commissioner of income tax appeals cannot be replaced for substituted for the satisfaction of the learned Assessing Officer. The honourable Supreme Court in Maxoop investments Ltd versus CIT [ 2018] 91 taxmann.com 154 (SC)/[2018] 254 Taxman 325 (SC)/[2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC)/[2018] 301 CTR 489 (SC) has held that having regard to the language of section 14A(2), read with rule 8D of the Rules, it is also made clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the Assessing Officer needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo motu 13 ITA No.2982/Del./2015 disallowance unde…

M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1380/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Sh. Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Acit, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Vs Central Circle – 29, Delhi-110006 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. S. Singhavi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2020 Order

Section 115JSection 143Section 144CSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36Section 43(5)(d)Section 80I

…ly when assessee has suo motu made disallowance in return of income, ld AO has not shown as to how disallowance offered in return is incorrect. In this connection, reference may be made to decision of Apex Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) in which it was held as under : “Having regard to language of section 14A(2), read with rule 8D of Rules, it is also made clear that before applying theory of apportionment, Assessing Officer needs to record satisfaction that having regard to kind of assessee, suo motu disallowance under section 14A was not correct. It will be in those case…

M/S Anushreya Investments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 767/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 14Section 14A

…horities have erred in law as well as on facts in applying the above disallowance provision in case of shares held as stock-in-law. We find no merit in assessee’s instant argument as hon’ble apex court’s recent decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) has settled the law that sec. 14A r.w.s Rule 8D disallowance applies even in an instance of shares held as stock-in-trade. The assessee fails in its former argument therefore. 3. Next comes equally significant aspect of computation of the impugned disallowance in case of share held as stock-in-trade. This Tribunal’s co-ordinate bench’s decis…

Je Energy Ventures P.Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

ITA 6598/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anubhav Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 14ASection 92BSection 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA No.6598/Del./2018 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) M/s. JE Energy Venture Private Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 1, (formerly known as Jubilant Energy Pvt.Ltd.), Noida. Plot No.1A, Institutional Area, Sector 16A, Noida – 201 301 (Uttar Pradesh) (PAN : AAACE0653K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Anubhav Rastogi, Advocate Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 23.09.2020 Date of O…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Kingfisher Finvest India Ltd

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA/100/2015HC Karnataka29 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE(ACJ),M.I.ARUN

Section 14ASection 260

…tion 14A of the Act is not permissible. It is submitted that the aforesaid view which has been taken by the Tribunal is in contravention of law laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘MAXOPP INVESTMENT LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI’ (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) as well as Circular No.5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revenue and have perused the record. From perusal of paragraph 10 of the order passed by Tribunal, it is evident that the Tribunal has held that since the assessee ha…

Mirah Hospitality & Food Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 4693/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: The Itat In These Cases Against A Common Order Of Learned Cit(A) For A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dated 28.5.2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of “Hotels & Resorts”, Filed The Return Of Income For The Ay 2009-2010 Declaring The Total Loss Of Rs.43,15,534/- After Set Off Of Ltcg Of Rs. 1,31,36,082/-. Assessee Is A Group Concern Of M/S. Twinkle Group. There Was A Search & Seizure Action On The Said M/S. Twinkle Group U/S 132 Of The Act. Accordingly, In Response To The Notice U/S 153A Of The Act, Assessee Filed The Return Of Income Declaring The Same Total Loss (Rs. (-) 43,15,334/-). Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A Of The Act Determining The Total Loss Of Rs. 3,82,977/- Which Include Certain Disallowances & Rs. 27,68,422/- Is One

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…only in the group concerns of the assessee for the purpose of acquiring strategic business stake. 12. We find that this issue is now squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT 402 ITR 640 (SC). 13. Last issue for which the Tribunal remanded the matter was whether the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D can exceed the exempt income. We find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Delight Enterprises (ITA no. 110 of 2009), where Hon'ble Jurisdictional Hi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Deccan Mining Syndicate Private Limited, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2232/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), S-7, 2Nd Floor, Esteem Arcade, No.26, Bengaluru. Vs. Race Course Road, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaacd 7081 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Harinder Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), S-7, 2nd Floor, Esteem Arcade, No.26, Bengaluru. Vs. Race Course Road, Bengaluru – 560 001. PAN : AAACD 7081 R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by : Shri. Harinder Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Assessee by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA Date of hearing : 17.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 18.09.2020 O R D E R Per George George K, Judicial Member Th…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sindhu Trade Links Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2652/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblesindhu Trade Links Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(A) 129, Transport Centre, New Range-8 Rohtak Road New Delhi Punjabi Bagh New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacs0447A (Appellant) Dcit Vs Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Central Circle-21 129, Transport Centre, New New Delhi Rohtak Road (Appellant) Punjabi Bagh New Delhi Aaacs0447A (Respondent) Vs Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Dcit 129, Transport Centre, New Circle-8(1) Rohtak Road New Delhi Punjabi Bagh New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacs0447A (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv Respondent By Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11.09.2020 Orders Dated 21/2/2014 For Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively Passed By Cit(A)’S-Xi, New Delhi.

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 69

…to Rs. 10,58,926/-. It is trite law that the disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: a. Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del. HC) b. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) 9. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee earned dividend income of Rs. 2,86,370/- during the year and no expenditure pertaining to earning of such exempt income has been disclosed by the assessee in his accounts. The Assessing Officer after considering all the relevant aspects of the case concluded that the assessee’s case is fit for the s…

M/S. Sindhu Trade Links Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2429/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblesindhu Trade Links Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(A) 129, Transport Centre, New Range-8 Rohtak Road New Delhi Punjabi Bagh New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacs0447A (Appellant) Dcit Vs Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Central Circle-21 129, Transport Centre, New New Delhi Rohtak Road (Appellant) Punjabi Bagh New Delhi Aaacs0447A (Respondent) Vs Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Dcit 129, Transport Centre, New Circle-8(1) Rohtak Road New Delhi Punjabi Bagh New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacs0447A (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv Respondent By Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11.09.2020 Orders Dated 21/2/2014 For Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively Passed By Cit(A)’S-Xi, New Delhi.

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 69

…to Rs. 10,58,926/-. It is trite law that the disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: a. Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del. HC) b. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) 9. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee earned dividend income of Rs. 2,86,370/- during the year and no expenditure pertaining to earning of such exempt income has been disclosed by the assessee in his accounts. The Assessing Officer after considering all the relevant aspects of the case concluded that the assessee’s case is fit for the s…

M/S. Sindhu Trade Links Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

The appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2428/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblesindhu Trade Links Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(A) 129, Transport Centre, New Range-8 Rohtak Road New Delhi Punjabi Bagh New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacs0447A (Appellant) Dcit Vs Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Central Circle-21 129, Transport Centre, New New Delhi Rohtak Road (Appellant) Punjabi Bagh New Delhi Aaacs0447A (Respondent) Vs Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Dcit 129, Transport Centre, New Circle-8(1) Rohtak Road New Delhi Punjabi Bagh New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacs0447A (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv Respondent By Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11.09.2020 Orders Dated 21/2/2014 For Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively Passed By Cit(A)’S-Xi, New Delhi.

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 69

…to Rs. 10,58,926/-. It is trite law that the disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: a. Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del. HC) b. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) 9. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee earned dividend income of Rs. 2,86,370/- during the year and no expenditure pertaining to earning of such exempt income has been disclosed by the assessee in his accounts. The Assessing Officer after considering all the relevant aspects of the case concluded that the assessee’s case is fit for the s…

M/S. Ranbaxy Holdings Co., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 495/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble & Ranbaxy Holding Company Vs Dcit 55, Hanuman Road Circle-15(1) Connaught Place New Delhi New Delhi Aakcs7686P (Appellant) (Respondent) & Dcit Vs Ranbaxy Holding Company Circle-15(1) 55, Hanuman Road New Delhi Connaught Place New Delhi Aakcs7686P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 43A

…1 ITA NOS. 3965/Del/2010, 4287/Del/2010 & 495/Del/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ranbaxy Holding Company Vs DCIT 55, Hanuman Road Circle-15(1) Connaught Place New Delhi New Delhi AAKCS7686P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) And DCIT Vs Ranbaxy Holding Company Circle-15(1) 55, Hanuman Road New Delhi Connaught Place New Delhi AAKCS7686P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Respondent by Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(A), DR, Sh. Mritunjay Barnwal, Sr DR Date of Hearing 24…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ranbaxy Holding Co., New Delhi

ITA 4287/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble & Ranbaxy Holding Company Vs Dcit 55, Hanuman Road Circle-15(1) Connaught Place New Delhi New Delhi Aakcs7686P (Appellant) (Respondent) & Dcit Vs Ranbaxy Holding Company Circle-15(1) 55, Hanuman Road New Delhi Connaught Place New Delhi Aakcs7686P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 43A

…1 ITA NOS. 3965/Del/2010, 4287/Del/2010 & 495/Del/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ranbaxy Holding Company Vs DCIT 55, Hanuman Road Circle-15(1) Connaught Place New Delhi New Delhi AAKCS7686P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) And DCIT Vs Ranbaxy Holding Company Circle-15(1) 55, Hanuman Road New Delhi Connaught Place New Delhi AAKCS7686P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Respondent by Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(A), DR, Sh. Mritunjay Barnwal, Sr DR Date of Hearing 24…

M/S. Ranbaxy Holding Company, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3965/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble & Ranbaxy Holding Company Vs Dcit 55, Hanuman Road Circle-15(1) Connaught Place New Delhi New Delhi Aakcs7686P (Appellant) (Respondent) & Dcit Vs Ranbaxy Holding Company Circle-15(1) 55, Hanuman Road New Delhi Connaught Place New Delhi Aakcs7686P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 43A

…1 ITA NOS. 3965/Del/2010, 4287/Del/2010 & 495/Del/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ranbaxy Holding Company Vs DCIT 55, Hanuman Road Circle-15(1) Connaught Place New Delhi New Delhi AAKCS7686P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) And DCIT Vs Ranbaxy Holding Company Circle-15(1) 55, Hanuman Road New Delhi Connaught Place New Delhi AAKCS7686P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Respondent by Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(A), DR, Sh. Mritunjay Barnwal, Sr DR Date of Hearing 24…

ACIT, Circle- 6(1), New Dlhi vs. Clix Finance India Unlimited, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 37/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Acit Vs Clix Finance India Unlimited Room No. 389, C. R. Building, (Earlier Known As Ge Capital New Delhi Services Ltd), E-20, 1St Floor, Hauz Khas, (Appellant) New Delhi Aaacg0239L (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

…s by ignoring the fact that the assessee has incurred huge expenses in relation to the huge investment in shares and mutual funds. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 402 ITR 640 (SC) 3 6. The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and further submitted that no exempt income was earned during the present assessment year and no expenditure was incurred. 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. 7…

Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela vs. DCIT, Rorukela Circle, Rourkela

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

ITA 393/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam,, CIT DR

…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 prov…

ACIT, Rorukela Circle, Rourkela vs. Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

ITA 389/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam,, CIT DR

…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 prov…

ACIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2364/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

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

…Court is fully sustainable. As held above, the Rule 8D is prospective in operation and could not have been applied to any assessment year prior to Assessment Year 200809. 3.9.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT reported in 402 ITR 640 has affirmed the view held in the case of Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (supra) as under: 10 ITA No.1947/Del./2018 ; 2364/Del.2018; 6474/Del./2016 &5872/Del./2016 “ 43. Few appeals are filed by the Revenue against the assessees which pertained to the period prior to the introduction of Rule 8D of the Rules. Here, the case is decided in favour of the…

Religare Finvest Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.Ciy, Range-21, New Delhi

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1947/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

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

…Court is fully sustainable. As held above, the Rule 8D is prospective in operation and could not have been applied to any assessment year prior to Assessment Year 200809. 3.9.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT reported in 402 ITR 640 has affirmed the view held in the case of Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (supra) as under: 10 ITA No.1947/Del./2018 ; 2364/Del.2018; 6474/Del./2016 &5872/Del./2016 “ 43. Few appeals are filed by the Revenue against the assessees which pertained to the period prior to the introduction of Rule 8D of the Rules. Here, the case is decided in favour of the…