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 367,194 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

Wns Global Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2257/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka & Shri Manish KanthFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Sanjay & Smt. Kavita Kaushik
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “K”, MUMBAI Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Judicial Member ITA No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 ITA No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12 WNS Global Services P. Ltd. Dy. CIT Circle 14(3)(1), Pl. No.10, Gate No.4, Mumbai Vs. Godrej & Boyce Complex, Phirojshanagar, LBS Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai 400 079. PAN: AAACW 2598L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Porus Kaka & Shri Manish Kanth Respondent By : Shri Kumar Sanjay & Smt. Kavita Kaushik Date of Hearing :31.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.…

Wns Global Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1955/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka & Shri Manish KanthFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Sanjay & Smt. Kavita Kaushik
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “K”, MUMBAI Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Judicial Member ITA No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 ITA No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12 WNS Global Services P. Ltd. Dy. CIT Circle 14(3)(1), Pl. No.10, Gate No.4, Mumbai Vs. Godrej & Boyce Complex, Phirojshanagar, LBS Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai 400 079. PAN: AAACW 2598L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Porus Kaka & Shri Manish Kanth Respondent By : Shri Kumar Sanjay & Smt. Kavita Kaushik Date of Hearing :31.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6603/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6602/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs M/S Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-12(1), M-62 & 63, First Floor, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci5194F

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Kedia, CIT DR
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 6602/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner of Vs M/s Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-12(1), M-62 & 63, First Floor, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCI5194F ITA No. 6603/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner of Vs M/s Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-12(1), M-62 & 63, First Floor, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PA…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6602/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6602/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs M/S Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-12(1), M-62 & 63, First Floor, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci5194F

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Kedia, CIT DR
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 6602/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner of Vs M/s Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-12(1), M-62 & 63, First Floor, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCI5194F ITA No. 6603/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner of Vs M/s Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-12(1), M-62 & 63, First Floor, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PA…

Shri Sanjay Prakash Kulshrestha, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer (T & J) O/O Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, the ground No

ITA 312/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Mar 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Akhilesh Kumar Jain (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)
Section 10Section 14A

…It was accordingly submitted that charging provision of section 14A(1) is not attracted at all to invite addition by applying Rule 8D and reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT, New Delhi (2018) 402 ITR 640(SC) besides various other decisions. Sanjay Prakash Kulshrestha Vs. ITO 6. It was further submitted that both the lower authorities have applied provisions of Rule 8D in a mechanical manner without analyzing the applicability or otherwise of charging provisions contained in sub section 1 of section 14A of the Act. It was further submitted that th…

Shri Sanjay Prakash Kulshrestha, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer (T & J) O/O Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, the ground No

ITA 311/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Mar 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Akhilesh Kumar Jain (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)
Section 10Section 14A

…It was accordingly submitted that charging provision of section 14A(1) is not attracted at all to invite addition by applying Rule 8D and reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT, New Delhi (2018) 402 ITR 640(SC) besides various other decisions. Sanjay Prakash Kulshrestha Vs. ITO 6. It was further submitted that both the lower authorities have applied provisions of Rule 8D in a mechanical manner without analyzing the applicability or otherwise of charging provisions contained in sub section 1 of section 14A of the Act. It was further submitted that th…

ACIT, Ltu - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. United Bank of India, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1528/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH (B), KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT (KZ) & SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A. No. 1528/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ACIT, Circle – 1, LTU, Kolkata.................................…………………………..........................Appellant 9th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata – 700 107. [PAN: AAACU 5624 P] M/s. United Bank of India...................…………………………………………………….........Respondent 16, Old Court House Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 700 001. Appearances by: Shri I. Jamir, CIT, DR & Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl.…

United Bank of India, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Ltu - 1, Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 75/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.75/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) United Bank Of India Vs. Acit, Ltu-1, Kolkata. 16, Old Court House Street, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu5624P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 23, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.06.2017 Passed In Case No.06/Cit(A)-23/L.T.U-1/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Learned Authorized Representative For Assessee & Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit-Dr Appearing At The Revenue’S Behest. 2. The Assessee’S First Substantive Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing Club Entrance Fees Of Rs.97,794/- In The Course Of Assessment Affirmed In The Lower In The Lower Appellate Proceedings. The Assessee Herein Is Admittedly A Bank Which Claimed The Impugned Expenditure As An Allowable Deduction Under Revenue Head. The Assessing Officer’S Assessment Order Dated 25.02.2015 Held The Same To Be Capital Expenditure Than Revenue In Nature. The Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Disallowance.

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 35D(1)(ii)Section 35D(2)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & Dr. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.75/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) United Bank of India Vs. ACIT, LTU-1, Kolkata. 16, Old Court House Street, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAACU5624P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 aris…

Gokaldas Kishore Kumar, Chennai vs. DCIT (OSD), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2355/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2355/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. R. Meenakshisundaram, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs.Vijaya Prabha, JCIT
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…nism provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. In the absence of such satisfaction, entire disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act would be vitiated. This view was endorsed by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT, (2018) 402 ITR 640. In view of the aforesaid observation and respectfully following the above decision, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete entire disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act in the sum of "5,00,460/- in the peculiar facts of the instant case. Accordingly, grounds 2 & 3 raised by the assessee are allowed. 6. The grounds No.4 to 6 raised by the ass…

Kjmc Corporate Advisors (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Circle-3(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 1512/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodkjmc Corporate Advisors (India) Income Tax Officer, Circle-3(2)(3), Pvt. Ltd, 162, 16Th Floor, Atlanta, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Nahta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi, D.R
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…sailed the assessment framed by the A.O before the CIT(A). Observing, that the disallowance worked out by the A.O under Sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D was in conformity with the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC), the CIT(A) upheld the same. At the same time, the CIT(A) taking cognizance of a clerical mistake that had crept in the aforesaid calculation of disallowance, therein scaled down the same to Rs.10,67,730/-, as against that made by the A.O at Rs.10,94,782/-. Accordingly, on the basis of his aforesaid observations the CIT(A) principally upheld…

DCIT- 14 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. Krypton Investment Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5209/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Krypton Investments Consultancy V. Acit – 14(2)(1) Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Pvt. Ltd., 13, Motilal Marwadi Chawl, M.G. Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ghatokopar(E), Mumbai – 400 077 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aadck9142R (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – 14(2)(1) V. M/S. Krypton Investments Consultancy Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Pvt. Ltd., 13, Motilal Marwadi Chawl, M.G. Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Ghatokopar(E), Mumbai – 400 077 Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aadck9142R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani
Section 14A

…t. Ltd., that the Assessing Officer without recording any satisfaction as to why the suomoto disallowance made by the assessee is incorrect invoked the provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D and made disallowance. In the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [402 ITR 640] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: - “41) Having regard to the language of Section 14A(2) of the Act, read with Rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowance under Section 14A was not cor…

M/S.Krypton Investments Consultancy Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4922/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Krypton Investments Consultancy V. Acit – 14(2)(1) Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Pvt. Ltd., 13, Motilal Marwadi Chawl, M.G. Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ghatokopar(E), Mumbai – 400 077 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aadck9142R (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – 14(2)(1) V. M/S. Krypton Investments Consultancy Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Pvt. Ltd., 13, Motilal Marwadi Chawl, M.G. Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Ghatokopar(E), Mumbai – 400 077 Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aadck9142R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani
Section 14A

…t. Ltd., that the Assessing Officer without recording any satisfaction as to why the suomoto disallowance made by the assessee is incorrect invoked the provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D and made disallowance. In the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [402 ITR 640] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: - “41) Having regard to the language of Section 14A(2) of the Act, read with Rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowance under Section 14A was not cor…

M/S. Taurus Home Furnishings Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6344/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6344/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Taurus Home Furnishings Ltd. Vs Acit, P-65 South Extension- Ii, Circle-25 (1), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct3484A Assessee By : Sh. V. K. Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing:23.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2020

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…the assessee in respect of such expenditure for cogent reasons. Satisfaction of the Assessing Officer has to be arrived at, having 7 Taurus Home Furnishings Ltd. regard to the accounts of the assessed as enunciated in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v CIT 402 ITR 640 (SC) and Godrej Boyce v DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC). 15. From the records or from the arguments of the ld. DR, we find that the invocation of sub-Section (2) of Section 14A is conspicuously absent and hence re-computation of the disallowance is not legally valid. And considering the investments in mutual funds and in shares are through PMS, har…

M/S. Rajdeep Automation Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune

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

ITA 2375/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Miss Jyoti SinghFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…(SC). We further find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Caraf Builders & Construction (P) Ltd., (2019) 101 Taxmann.com 167 (Del) after considering the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640, Cheminvest Vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 and other decisions has held that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed exempt income of the relevant year. In the present case, since assessee has earned exempt income of 62,111/- in A.Y. 2012-13 and Rs.1,66,283/- in A.Y. 2013-14, we relying on the aforesaid decisions, direct the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule…

M/S. Rajdeep Automation Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune

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

ITA 2374/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Miss Jyoti SinghFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…(SC). We further find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Caraf Builders & Construction (P) Ltd., (2019) 101 Taxmann.com 167 (Del) after considering the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640, Cheminvest Vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 and other decisions has held that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed exempt income of the relevant year. In the present case, since assessee has earned exempt income of 62,111/- in A.Y. 2012-13 and Rs.1,66,283/- in A.Y. 2013-14, we relying on the aforesaid decisions, direct the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule…

United Bank of India, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Ltu - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 74/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.74/Kol/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) United Bank Of India Vs. Acit, Ltu-1, Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234DSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.74/Kol/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) United Bank of India Vs. ACIT, LTU-1, Kolkata 16, Old Court House Street, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. :AAACU 5624 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent by :Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT D.R सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 20/11/2019 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 19/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the as…

DCIT, CC- 6(3), Mumbai vs. Tatva Global Environment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6914/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Tatva Global Environment Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 6(3) Uniphos House, C.D. Marg Room No. 1926, 19Th Floor 11Th Road, Nr. Madhu Park, Khar(W) Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 052 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaics1718A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Saisudha MultaniFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s. Tatva Global Environment Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 6(3) Uniphos House, C.D. Marg Room No. 1926, 19th Floor 11th Road, Nr. Madhu Park, Khar(W) Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 052 Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AAICS1718A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.NO. 191/MUM/2019 [ARISING OUT OF ITA No. 6914/MUM/2018 (A.Y. 2015-16)] Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax M/s. Tatva Global Environment Pvt. Ltd., v. Central C…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh vs. M/S TDS Management Consultant Pvt Ltd

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/382/2019HC Punjab & Haryana06 Feb 2020

Bench: It Should Be Reinstated & Decided On Merits ? (Ii) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon'Ble Itat Is Justified In Dismissing The Miscellaneous Application Of The Revenue Without Discussing The Merits Ignoring The Legislative Intent Expressed In Cbdt'S Anuradha 2020.02.12 17:37 I Attest To The Accuracy & Integrity Of This Document

Section 14ASection 260

…ITA-382-2019 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-382-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision : 6.2.2020 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh ...... Appellant Versus M/s. TDS Management Consultant Pvt. Ld. ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN *** Present : Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing counsel for the appellant. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 27.3.2019 relating to asses…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 3644/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT-DR&
Section 143(3)Section 147

…taxmann.com 3] [Punjab and Haryana High Court] [see pages 647 to 657 of Paper Book – I It was stated by Ld Counsel for the assessee that the appeal filed by the department has been dismissed by the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v/s. CIT [402 ITR 640] 48 | P a g e State Bank of India ITA Nos.3644&4563/Mum/2016  Punjab National Bank v/s. ACIT [ITA No. 1519/ Del/ 2016 dt. 28.11.2018] [Delhi Tribunal]  In this case, the Delhi Tribunal relying on the findings given by the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. & State Bank of Patiala has specifically held that where the assessee i…

Nhavasheva International Container Terminal P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3364/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Ms. Amrita Ranjan, DR
Section 115J

…Section 14A of the Act is to be limited to the extent of exempt income earned. We find that the contention of the learned counsel of assessee is cogent inasmuch as the same view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC). The second contention is that assessee is having sufficient interest free funds and hence no disallowance for interest is to be done under Section 14A of the Act. This claim is supported by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR…