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 367,302 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

M/S Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6474/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S 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 5872/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

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…

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in AY 2008-09 is partly allowed and

ITA 794/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarvertual Court No. Iii It(Tp)A No. 3263/Mum/2017 For Ay 2008-09 It(Tp) No. 794/Mum/2018 For Ay 201-011 Tata Consultancy Services Vs Dcit Ltd.,9Th Floor, Nirmal Bldg, Large Tax Payer Unit-1, 29Th Floor, Wtc, Nariman Point. Mumbai – 21 Cufee Parade Pan Aaacr4849R Mumbai- 05. Appellant Respondednt

For Appellant: with Sh. Manish Kumar KanthFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 40Section 90Section 90(1)(a)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…the exempt income earned by the assessee. In ITA Nos. 3263 & 3746/Mum/2017, 794 & 1207/Mum/2018. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Mumbai (AY 2008-09 &2010-11) support of his submissions the ld AR for the assessee relied on the decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd 402 ITR 640 SC, Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd 328 ITR 81 (Bom), HDFC Bank Ltd 383 ITR 529 (Bom). 30. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities. The AO after invoking the provisions of Rule 8D made disallowance of Rs. 14,12,77,945/-, which consist disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i) of Rs.…

Sri Alok Agrawal, Sundergarh vs. Pr. CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 160/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.319/Ctk/2018 & Ita No.160/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Sri Alok Agrawal, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur Rathor Colony, Ocl Approach Road, Rajgangpur, District-Sundergarh Pan No. : Afkpa 2367 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 26.03.2018 & 26.03.2019 For The Assessment Years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Similar Issue Has Been Raised In Both The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein & The Outcome Of The Same Shall Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2014-2015 Also. 3. Grounds Raised In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Notice Issued Under Section 263 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pr. Cit") & The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Unjustified, Arbitrary, Excessive, Contrary To Evidences & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA Nos.319/CTK/2018 & ITA No.160/CTK/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Sri Alok Agrawal, Vs. Pr. CIT, Sambalpur Rathor Colony, OCL Approach Road, Rajgangpur, District-Sundergarh PAN No. : AFKPA 2367 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.S.Poddar, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 04/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronou…

Sri Alok Agarwal, Sundergarh vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 319/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.319/Ctk/2018 & Ita No.160/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Sri Alok Agrawal, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur Rathor Colony, Ocl Approach Road, Rajgangpur, District-Sundergarh Pan No. : Afkpa 2367 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 26.03.2018 & 26.03.2019 For The Assessment Years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Similar Issue Has Been Raised In Both The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein & The Outcome Of The Same Shall Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2014-2015 Also. 3. Grounds Raised In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Notice Issued Under Section 263 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pr. Cit") & The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Unjustified, Arbitrary, Excessive, Contrary To Evidences & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA Nos.319/CTK/2018 & ITA No.160/CTK/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Sri Alok Agrawal, Vs. Pr. CIT, Sambalpur Rathor Colony, OCL Approach Road, Rajgangpur, District-Sundergarh PAN No. : AFKPA 2367 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.S.Poddar, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 04/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronou…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Bhoruka Power Corporation Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1734/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate
Section 14ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/s. Bhoruka Power Corporation Ltd., of Income Tax, No.48, Lavelle Road, Circle 1(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 001. PAN: AACCB 1422A Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Respondent by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Date of hearing : 05.08.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 07.08.2020 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President This appeal by the revenue is against the ord…

Doha Bank Qsc India Branches, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3210/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathait(Tp)A No.3210/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Doha Bank Qsc, India Vs. Dcit(International Branches (Successors To Transaction)-2(2)(2) 17Th Hsbc Bank Oman S.A.O.G., Floor, Air India India Branches) Building, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Sakhar Bhavan, Ground Floor, Plot No-230 Block No Iii, Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aafcd3506L Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.3210/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Doha Bank QSC, India Vs. DCIT(International branches (Successors to Transaction)-2(2)(2) 17th HSBC Bank Oman S.A.O.G., Floor, Air India India branches) Building, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Sakhar Bhavan, Ground Floor, Plot No-230 Block NO III, Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 PAN/GIR No.AAFCD3506L Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Niraj Sheth, AR Revenue by Shri Anand Mohan, CIT-DR Date of Heari…

Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 670/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.P. Pareek (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 14ASection 244ASection 35D

…e Bench in case of M/s Rajasthan land Holding Ltd. dated 25.09.2019 which has followed the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 387 ITR 33 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT 402 ITR 640. It was accordingly submitted that the assessee has not incurred any expenditure, further no exempt has been earned during the year, hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer directed to be deleted. 17. Per contra, the ld. DR has relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 18. We have considered the rival submissions and perused th…

Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 669/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.P. Pareek (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 14ASection 244ASection 35D

…e Bench in case of M/s Rajasthan land Holding Ltd. dated 25.09.2019 which has followed the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 387 ITR 33 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT 402 ITR 640. It was accordingly submitted that the assessee has not incurred any expenditure, further no exempt has been earned during the year, hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer directed to be deleted. 17. Per contra, the ld. DR has relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 18. We have considered the rival submissions and perused th…

Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 668/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.P. Pareek (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 14ASection 244ASection 35D

…e Bench in case of M/s Rajasthan land Holding Ltd. dated 25.09.2019 which has followed the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 387 ITR 33 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT 402 ITR 640. It was accordingly submitted that the assessee has not incurred any expenditure, further no exempt has been earned during the year, hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer directed to be deleted. 17. Per contra, the ld. DR has relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 18. We have considered the rival submissions and perused th…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Religare Securities Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 574/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…ance of Rs.2,75,99,362/-, the disallowance u/s 14A, under no circumstances can be less than the said amount. Otherwise, the final computation will be less than the returned income. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, 402 ITR 640, has held that the disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income received. Therefore, the ground raised by the Revenue on this issue has to be dismissed. Accordingly, the ground by the Revenue on this issue is dismissed. 18. So far as the grounds raised by the assessee including the additional grounds are concerned, the Hon’ble Hig…

M/S. Religare Enterprise Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…ance of Rs.2,75,99,362/-, the disallowance u/s 14A, under no circumstances can be less than the said amount. Otherwise, the final computation will be less than the returned income. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, 402 ITR 640, has held that the disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income received. Therefore, the ground raised by the Revenue on this issue has to be dismissed. Accordingly, the ground by the Revenue on this issue is dismissed. 18. So far as the grounds raised by the assessee including the additional grounds are concerned, the Hon’ble Hig…

Dimension Data India Ltd ( Formelry Datacraft India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7725/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta/ Anuj Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Michael Jerald, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dimension Data India The Additional Commissioner of (Formerly Datacraft India Vs. Income Tax-2(1), Mumbai. Ltd.)2nd Floor, Trade View Building, Pandurang Bhudkar Marg, Kamala Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. PAN No. AAACD2145G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Vijay Mehta/ Anuj Kisnadwala, AR Revenue by : Mr. Michael Jerald, DR Last Date of Hearing : 06/03/2020 Date of Pronouncement : 27/07/2020 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M.…

Dy.CIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Alok Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 904/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT-DR) &For Respondent: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani
Section 115Section 115J

…t read with rule 8D(2)(ii) by relying on HDFC Bank decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported in 366 ITR 505, without appreciating that the same has been superseded by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC). 16. Brief facts on this issue are that while discussing the aforesaid disallowance, the Assessing Officer has noted that assessee has duly submitted that it had sufficient interest free funds to make those investment which earned exempt income . The assessee further contended before the Assessing Officer that these were strategic investmen…

DCIT Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Alok Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 903/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT-DR) &For Respondent: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani
Section 115Section 115J

…t read with rule 8D(2)(ii) by relying on HDFC Bank decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported in 366 ITR 505, without appreciating that the same has been superseded by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC). 16. Brief facts on this issue are that while discussing the aforesaid disallowance, the Assessing Officer has noted that assessee has duly submitted that it had sufficient interest free funds to make those investment which earned exempt income . The assessee further contended before the Assessing Officer that these were strategic investmen…

DCIT Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Alok Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 900/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT-DR) &For Respondent: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani
Section 115Section 115J

…t read with rule 8D(2)(ii) by relying on HDFC Bank decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported in 366 ITR 505, without appreciating that the same has been superseded by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC). 16. Brief facts on this issue are that while discussing the aforesaid disallowance, the Assessing Officer has noted that assessee has duly submitted that it had sufficient interest free funds to make those investment which earned exempt income . The assessee further contended before the Assessing Officer that these were strategic investmen…

DCIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Alok Industries Limited., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 906/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT-DR) &For Respondent: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani
Section 115Section 115J

…t read with rule 8D(2)(ii) by relying on HDFC Bank decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported in 366 ITR 505, without appreciating that the same has been superseded by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC). 16. Brief facts on this issue are that while discussing the aforesaid disallowance, the Assessing Officer has noted that assessee has duly submitted that it had sufficient interest free funds to make those investment which earned exempt income . The assessee further contended before the Assessing Officer that these were strategic investmen…

Dy. CIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Alok Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 905/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT-DR) &For Respondent: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani
Section 115Section 115J

…t read with rule 8D(2)(ii) by relying on HDFC Bank decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported in 366 ITR 505, without appreciating that the same has been superseded by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC). 16. Brief facts on this issue are that while discussing the aforesaid disallowance, the Assessing Officer has noted that assessee has duly submitted that it had sufficient interest free funds to make those investment which earned exempt income . The assessee further contended before the Assessing Officer that these were strategic investmen…

DCIT Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Alok Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 902/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT-DR) &For Respondent: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani
Section 115Section 115J

…t read with rule 8D(2)(ii) by relying on HDFC Bank decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported in 366 ITR 505, without appreciating that the same has been superseded by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC). 16. Brief facts on this issue are that while discussing the aforesaid disallowance, the Assessing Officer has noted that assessee has duly submitted that it had sufficient interest free funds to make those investment which earned exempt income . The assessee further contended before the Assessing Officer that these were strategic investmen…

DCIT Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Alok Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 901/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT-DR) &For Respondent: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani
Section 115Section 115J

…t read with rule 8D(2)(ii) by relying on HDFC Bank decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported in 366 ITR 505, without appreciating that the same has been superseded by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC). 16. Brief facts on this issue are that while discussing the aforesaid disallowance, the Assessing Officer has noted that assessee has duly submitted that it had sufficient interest free funds to make those investment which earned exempt income . The assessee further contended before the Assessing Officer that these were strategic investmen…