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 367,154 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

Manipal Global Education Services Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.719 to 721/Bang/2025 Assessment years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 Manipal Education & Medical Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Group India Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax. No.24/1, 15th Floor, Central Circle 2(2), JW Marriot, Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. PAN: AACCM 6813A APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.722/Bang/2025 Assessment years: 2018-19 Manipal Hospital Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Limited of Income Tax. 98/2 The Annexes Central Circ…

Manipal Hospitals Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As Columbia Asia Hospitals Pvt. Ltd), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 722/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.719 to 721/Bang/2025 Assessment years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 Manipal Education & Medical Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Group India Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax. No.24/1, 15th Floor, Central Circle 2(2), JW Marriot, Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. PAN: AACCM 6813A APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.722/Bang/2025 Assessment years: 2018-19 Manipal Hospital Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Limited of Income Tax. 98/2 The Annexes Central Circ…

Manipal Education and Medical Group India Pvt. Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 721/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.719 to 721/Bang/2025 Assessment years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 Manipal Education & Medical Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Group India Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax. No.24/1, 15th Floor, Central Circle 2(2), JW Marriot, Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. PAN: AACCM 6813A APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.722/Bang/2025 Assessment years: 2018-19 Manipal Hospital Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Limited of Income Tax. 98/2 The Annexes Central Circ…

Manipal Education and Medical Group India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 720/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.719 to 721/Bang/2025 Assessment years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 Manipal Education & Medical Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Group India Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax. No.24/1, 15th Floor, Central Circle 2(2), JW Marriot, Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. PAN: AACCM 6813A APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.722/Bang/2025 Assessment years: 2018-19 Manipal Hospital Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Limited of Income Tax. 98/2 The Annexes Central Circ…

Manipal Education and Medical Group India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 719/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.719 to 721/Bang/2025 Assessment years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 Manipal Education & Medical Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Group India Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax. No.24/1, 15th Floor, Central Circle 2(2), JW Marriot, Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. PAN: AACCM 6813A APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.722/Bang/2025 Assessment years: 2018-19 Manipal Hospital Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Limited of Income Tax. 98/2 The Annexes Central Circ…

United Bank of India, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Ltu, Circle - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

ITA 428/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

Section 115JSection 14ASection 15JSection 211Section 250Section 36(1)(viii)

…1 We accordingly direct that the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer be deleted. However, we are aware that the assessee has disallowed and added back Rs.1.87 Crores on his own account. Accordingly, following the Maxopp Investment Ltd. case reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC), whereby the issue of investments held as stock-in-trade has been discussed in para 39, we direct that the disallowance made by the assessee on his own account will be sufficient to satisfy the provisions of section 14A of the Act. For reference, an illuminating portion from the Maxopp case (supra) needs to be extracted: “In those cases, wh…

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

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

ITA 215/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

Section 115JSection 14ASection 15JSection 211Section 250Section 36(1)(viii)

…1 We accordingly direct that the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer be deleted. However, we are aware that the assessee has disallowed and added back Rs.1.87 Crores on his own account. Accordingly, following the Maxopp Investment Ltd. case reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC), whereby the issue of investments held as stock-in-trade has been discussed in para 39, we direct that the disallowance made by the assessee on his own account will be sufficient to satisfy the provisions of section 14A of the Act. For reference, an illuminating portion from the Maxopp case (supra) needs to be extracted: “In those cases, wh…

Makson Pharmaceuticals(India) Private Limited, Surendranagar vs. Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1017/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri M J Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1017/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) बनाम/ Makson Pharmaceuticals Pr.CIT (India) Private Limited Ahmedabad-3, Vs. Survey No.195, Makson Ahmedabad Compound, Rajkot Highway, Surendranagar, Gujarat 363020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCM2806L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri M J Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR 13/05/2025 Date of Hearing Date of…

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 3675/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kalpexh Unadkat &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…e disallowance u/s 14A of the Act per se could not be made in the instant case as the investments were admittedly held as stock in trade, the ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640(SC) decided the same against the assessee. 4. 3. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640(SC) had categorically held that normally investments held as stock in trade would also be liable for disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. However, with respect to investments held as stock in trade by the…

Indusind Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 1842/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…e disallowance u/s 14A of the Act per se could not be made in the instant case as the investments were admittedly held as stock in trade, the ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640(SC) decided the same against the assessee. 4. 3. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640(SC) had categorically held that normally investments held as stock in trade would also be liable for disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. However, with respect to investments held as stock in trade by the…

Sbl Private Limited, Haridwar, Uttrakhand vs. PCIT (Central), Delhi-2, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2231/DEL/2024[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…s only. That being the case the Revenue could hardly dispute that the PCIT’s revision directions have nowhere specifically rejected the assessee’s books of accounts u/s 14A(2) of the Act which has been held as mandatory in MAXOPP Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). We, thus, reject the revenue’s first and foremost argument in very terms. 4. The Revenue’s second argument raised during the course of hearing is that PCIT’s impugned revision directions have rightly invoked Section 14A Explanation inserted in the Act vide Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f. 1.4.2022. We see no merit in the Revenue’s second substantiv…

Netplast Pvt.Ltd., Kanpur vs. ACIT Circle 2(3)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 320/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 69C

…I.T.A. No.320/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH 'A', LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.320/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2017-18 M/s Netplast Pvt. Limited, 2 & 4 UPTRON Estate, Panki, Kanpur. PAN:AAACN5755E (Appellant) Vs. A.C.Ι.Τ., Circle-2(3)(1), Kanpur. (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by Shri Amit Kumar, Addl. CIT, D.R. ORDER PER SUBHASH MALGURIA: J.M. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.320/Lkw/2024 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18…

R.D.Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 1, 2 & 3 of the appeal are allowed

ITA 2980/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) R.D. Enterprises Dcit, Circle – 17(3), Mumbai. C-65, Mittal Court, Nariman Point, Vs Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Mumbai – 400001. Bandra (East), [Pan No. Aaafr1977R] Mumbai – 400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 115BSection 14ASection 153(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…icer rejected the assessee’s contention that no expenses were incurred for earning such income; the assessing officer computed the disallowance @ 1.00% of average value of investment. The ld. CIT(A) held that as per decision of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT 402 ITR 640, even indirect expenses must be allocated. On the addition of section 68, the ld. CIT(A) held that assessee received loan of Rs. 9.16 crore but failed to furnish ITR of creditors to establish their financial standing (creditworthiness). Mere bank statement is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of loan and confirmed the addition. Furthe…

Dai-Ichi Karkaria Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 4 of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1588/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 254(1)Section 270A

…t cost etc. Contention of assessee that no direct or indirect cost was incurred in relation to earning tax 2 Dai-Ichi Karkaria Limited free dividend income cannot be excepted. The AO by referring the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investments (2018) 15 SCC 523/ AIRONLINE 2018 SC 1470 has noted whether dividend income has earned or not is immaterial. The AO disallowed 1.00 % of average value of investment. The total annual average was worked out by AO at Rs. 25.86 Cr. Thereby the AO worked out disallowance of Rs. 25,86,319/-. Since, the assessee already made disallowance of Rs. 20,56,871/-, thereby AO ma…

Vinay Dua, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4890/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountant Memebr Asstt. Yr. 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14A

…1 Vinay Dua (A.Y. 2018-19) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR Asstt. Yr. 2018-19 Vinay Dua Vs Assessing Officer Proprietor M/s Gemini Industrial National e-Assessment Centre, Corporation, 16/78, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. New Delhi-110026. PAN- AADPD 0927 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Ankit Msdnani, CA Sh. Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. DR Department represented by Date of hearing 07.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 25.06.2025 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal, filed…

Ntpc Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4953/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 201Section 250

…O, the provisions of rule 8D has been changed w.e.f. 02.06.2016 and thereafter as per the AO, the provision of section rule 8D(2) are applicable. NTPC Limited vs.DCIT 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd v. CIT reported in (2018)402 ITR 640(SC) laid down following principal: - The expression 'in relation to' appearing in section 14A cannot be ascribed a narrow or constricted meaning. The expression 'in relation to' does not have any embedded object. It simply means 'in connection with' or 'pertaining to'. If the expenditure in question has a relation or connection with or pertains t…

Fena Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 2475/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(3)

…had been mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited reported in 394 ITR 449(SC). This was also endorsed in the subsequent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC). Hence, we have no hesitation to delete the disallowance of expenses made under section 14A of the Act by the Learned AO in the instant case for both the years. 6. The Ground No.2 raised by the assessee was stated to be not pressed by the Learned AR at the time of hearing. Hence dismissed as not pressed. 7. In the result, both the appeals…

Fena Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Additional, Joint, Deputy, ACIT, ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 2474/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(3)

…had been mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited reported in 394 ITR 449(SC). This was also endorsed in the subsequent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC). Hence, we have no hesitation to delete the disallowance of expenses made under section 14A of the Act by the Learned AO in the instant case for both the years. 6. The Ground No.2 raised by the assessee was stated to be not pressed by the Learned AR at the time of hearing. Hence dismissed as not pressed. 7. In the result, both the appeals…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Chadha Papers Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5213/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit, Vs. M/S. Chadha Papers Ltd, Central Circle-29, Chadha Estate, Nainital New Delhi Road, Rampur, Bilaspur, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcc3799C M/S. Chadha Papers Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Chadha Estate, Nainital Central Circle-29, Road, Rampur, Bilaspur, New Delhi Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcc3799C Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv Shri Anil Chachra, Adv Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…d Rule 8D cannot be invoked in case the assesesee was an investment company, or the shares were procured for the purpose of the strategic investments, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2018] 402 ITR 640(SC). Recording the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed in limine, without notice being issued.” 7. Respectfully following the same, we hold that this is not fit case to make disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. In view of this decision, the other propositions argued by the ld AR need not be gone into and they are left open. Accordingly, the grounds ra…

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -11(1), Kolkata vs. Philips Carbon Black Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2459/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

…ce is called for in this regard. The Ld. A.R has also placed reliance on the decision passed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Kesoram Industries Ltd. vs. PCIT and decision of Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment ltd. vs. CIT 402 ITR 640. The Ld. A.R has further submitted that the disallowance u/s 14A in terms of formula laid down in Rule 8D(2)(ii) should be computed only with reference to the cost of dividend yielding investment. The further submission of the Ld. AR with regard to the disallowance of weighted component of deduction u/s 35(2)(ab) of the Act is concerned that the…