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 367,181 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

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

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

ITA 705/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

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…

Real Utility Engineers Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 6066/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 6066/Mum/2013 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 7181/Mum/2014 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 7722/Mum/2014 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) Crest Logistics & Engineers The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax, Circle 10(1), (New Jurisdiction (Erstwhile Rel Utility Engineers Pvt. Dy. Cit 14(3)(1), Mumbai बनाम / Ltd. Formerly Known As Sonata Vs. Investments Ltd.) (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaccr7266A आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 5905/Mum/2013 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 6823/Mum/2014 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Crest Logistics & Engineers Tax, Circle 10(1), (New Jurisdiction Private Limited बनाम Dy. Cit 14(3)(1), Mumbai (Erstwhile Rel Utility Engineers / Pvt. Ltd. Formerly Known As Vs. Sonata Investments Ltd.) (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By : S/Shri Jitendra Sanghavi, Amit Khatiwala, Ars’ प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Jayant Jhaveri, Dr

For Appellant: S/Shri Jitendra SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…7181, 7722 & 6823/M/14 AYs; 08-09 & 10-11 appellant with respect to disallowance under section.14A.” 13. We noted that this issue is now covered in favor of Revenue by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC). Once, the issue on exclusion of stock in trade while computing expenditure in relation to exempt income while disallowing under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules, the Assessing Officer has to consider the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer acco…

M/S Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., Gautam Budh Nagar vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 988/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Prashant Maharishihonda Siel Power Products Vs Dcit Ltd., Sector-41, (Kasana) Circle – 12 (1) Greater Noida, Ind. New Delhi Development Area, Gautam Budh Nagar Pan No. Aaach8464L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs Honda Siel Power Products Circle – 11 (1) Ltd., Sector-41, (Kasana) New Delhi Greater Noida, Indl. Development Area, Gautam Budh Nagar Pan No. Aaach8464L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Advocate Ms. Shaily Gupta, Ca Respondent By Sh. S. K. Jain Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/02/2020 Order

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80H

…ture incurred by the assessee for earning of exempt income. Merely, stating that certain expenditure are required to be incurred for earning the exempt income does not satisfy the requirement of provision of section 14A(2) of the Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 402 ITR 640 in para 41 has held that before making any disallowance, AO needs to record the satisfaction which is missing in this case. In the preset case, it is apparent that assessee has not incurred or not disallowed any expenditure u/s 14A of the Act. In view of this we direct the ld AO to delete the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Resultantly, ground N…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chd vs. M/S Agri King Tractors and Equipments Pvt. Ltd

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/356/2019HC Punjab & Haryana29 Jan 2020

Bench: It Should Be Reinstated & Decided On Merits ?” Ii. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Itat Is Justified In Directing The Assessing Officer To Verify The Claim Of The Assessee Having Not Earned Any Exempt Income In The Year Under Consideration & Allow The Relief Accordingly, Ignoring The Legislative Intent Anuradha 2020.01.30 16:03 I Attest To The Accuracy & Integrity Of This Document

Section 14ASection 260

…ration and allow the relief accordingly, ignoring the principal of apportionment regardless of exempt income laid down by Ld. Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Walfort Share and stock Brokers P. Ltd: 326 ITR (SC) and upheld by the Ld. Supreme Court in 91 Taxmann.com 154 (SC) ?” vi Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT is justified in directing the assessing officer to verify the claim of the assessee having not earned any exempt income in the year under consideration and ANURADHA 2020.01.30 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-356-201…

Ramanuj Finance P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 9(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6088/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri H. S. RahejaFor Respondent: Smt Jothilakshmi Nayak, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…order of AO observed that the ambiguity in application of section 14A r.w.r 8D in the hands of investors who held shares as stock-in-trade has been set at arrest by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT reported in 402 ITR 640(SC). 3 Ramanuj Finance P. Ltd., Mumbai 6. After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material on record, we observe that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the order of AO by following the decision in CIT Vs Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra). In our opinion, the ld. CIT(A) has correctly passed the order by following…

Jt. CIT -(OSD)-2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3673/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Central Bank Of India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 4Th Floor, Of Income Tax – 2(1) Chandermukhi Building Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaacc2498P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Jt. Cit (Osd)-2(1)(2) Vs. Central Bank Of India R.No.561, 5Th Floor 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road Chandermukhi Building Mumbai – 400 020 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaacc2498P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By Shri V. Sreekar Date Of Hearing 16/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Cross Appeals In Ita Nos.3739/Mum/2018 & 3673/Mum/2018 For A.Y.2012-13 Arises Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)-3/Dcit2(1) It- 44/Tr.4/16-17 Dated 30/01/2018 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 25/03/2014 By The Ld. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

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

…on that whether those expenses were indeed incurred for the purpose of earning exempt income or taxable income. This is conspicuously absent in the hands of the instant case. We find that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640 had also addressed the impugned issue both on technical ground as well as on merits. We find that on the aspect of technical issue i.e. non-recording of objective satisfaction by the ld. AO having regard to the accounts of the assessee, we find that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had categorically held that in the absence of said satisfaction as conte…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Modland Wears Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Ground Nos

ITA 3587/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 ACIT, Vs. M/s. Moodland Wears Pvt. Circle-5(1), Ltd., C.R. Building, S-137, (2nd Floor), Greater New Delhi Kailash-II, New Delhi PAN :AAACM0216F (Appellant) (Respondent) And C.O. No.299/Del/2011 [In ITA No.3587/Del/2011] Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Moodland Wears Pvt. Vs. ACIT, Ltd., Circle-5(1), S-137, (2nd Floor), Greater C.R. Building, Kailash-II, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAACM0216F (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by Ms. Pramita M…

Shri. Shankarlal Gilada vs. The Income Tax Officer

ITA/200002/2018HC Karnataka22 Jan 2020

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260A

…f the Tribunal and would submit that the issue that is formed for consideration before this Court stands completely covered by the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi reported in (2018) 15 SCC 523. 9 12. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material on record. 13. The appellant borrowed money from various sources and such interest bearing funds were utilized for making investment in shares, which according to the appellant, is the inc…

ACIT Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 948/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 948/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…evenue is against the disallowance under section 14A. The Ld. DR submitted on the lines of grounds of appeal. However, the Ld AR submitted that this issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd (402 ITR 640) and this Tribunal in ITA No.77/Mds/2014 vide order dated 03/04/2017 decided partly in the assessee’sfavour in its own case. The relevant portion of the order of this Tribunal dated 03.04.2017 is extracted as under:- 8. The second ground is with regard to disallowance u/s.14Ar.w.Rules 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 9. At the outset, the Id.A.R…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-2, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 777/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 948/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…evenue is against the disallowance under section 14A. The Ld. DR submitted on the lines of grounds of appeal. However, the Ld AR submitted that this issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd (402 ITR 640) and this Tribunal in ITA No.77/Mds/2014 vide order dated 03/04/2017 decided partly in the assessee’sfavour in its own case. The relevant portion of the order of this Tribunal dated 03.04.2017 is extracted as under:- 8. The second ground is with regard to disallowance u/s.14Ar.w.Rules 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 9. At the outset, the Id.A.R…

Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd., Coimbatore vs. Addl.CIT, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 1387/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. M/S.Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd., The Addl.Cit, Perianaickenpalayam, Corporate Range, S.R.K.V. Post, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 020. [Pan: Aaacl 5244 N ] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent) : Mr. R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. अपीलाथ+ क. ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. M.Srinivasa Rao, Cit ,-यथ+ क. ओर से /Respondent By : 07.11.2019 सुनवाई क. तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2020 घोषणा क. तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Appellant: Mr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CITFor Respondent: 07.11.2019
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43(2)

…on that short ground seeking exclusion from invocation of Section 14A of the 1961 Act , the issue is no more res integra as Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled this controversy in its judgment in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited v. CIT reported in (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) wherein this issue is decided in favour of Revenue and such investments are to be considered/included for making disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the 1961 Act. The AO is directed to include such investments for making disallowance of expensed incurred in relation to earning of an exempt income by invoking provisions of Section 14A of t…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Syndicate Bank

ITA/97/2010HC Karnataka17 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 14ASection 260

…ALFORT SHARE & STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD.’, (2010) 326 ITR 1, ‘GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX’, (2017) 394 ITR 449 and ‘MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. VS. 9 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI’, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC)’. It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that substantial question of law Nos.1 and 3 are interlinked. While inviting the attention of this Court to Explanation to Section 115JA of the Act, it is submitted that in the assessee’s appeal with reference, to explanation to Section 115JA(c) of the Act namely ITA No.16…

M/S. Paramount Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 188/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.-187/Del/2017, A.Y. 2012-13 ITA No.-188/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 M/s. Paramount Products Vs. DCIT Circle-19(2) (P) Ltd., New Delhi A-55, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020 PAN : AAACP1213B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh Rajesh Malhotra, CA Revenue by : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A) For the sake of convenience these two appeals are disposed of through this consolidated order as common issue is inv…

M/S. Paramount Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 187/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.-187/Del/2017, A.Y. 2012-13 ITA No.-188/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 M/s. Paramount Products Vs. DCIT Circle-19(2) (P) Ltd., New Delhi A-55, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020 PAN : AAACP1213B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh Rajesh Malhotra, CA Revenue by : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A) For the sake of convenience these two appeals are disposed of through this consolidated order as common issue is inv…

Alco Company Pvt. .Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6320/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Alco Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Rahimtoola House Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) 7, Homji Street, Fort Ayakar Bhavan, M K Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaaca1031G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ced on record the copy of this Tribunal’s order in its own case for A.Y.2010-11 dated 30/07/2018 wherein the issue was remanded to the file of the ld. AO to decide in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640. But we find from the perusal of the assessment order that the ld. AO had duly considered the ultimate principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investments by properly excluding the investments made in foreign companies which would yield taxable income while considering the average value of investments for the purpose of disall…

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Construction Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2432/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Hindustan Construction Co. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd.,Hincon House, L.B.S. Vs. Income Tax-14(2)(1), Marg, Vikhroli (West), 4Th Floor, Aayakarbhavan, Mumbai-400083. New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaach0968B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 The D.C.I.T.-14(2)(1), Hindustan Construction 432, Aayakarbhavan, 4Th Vs. Co. Ltd.,Hincon House, 11Th Floor, M.K. Marg, Floor,247 Park, L.B.S. Mumbai-400020. Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Aaach0968B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. H.P. Mahajani / Ms. Shweta Mahadik, ARsFor Respondent: Mr. Anand Mohan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Hindustan Construction Co. Assistant Commissioner of Ltd.,Hincon House, L.B.S. Vs. Income Tax-14(2)(1), Marg, Vikhroli (West), 4th floor, AayakarBhavan, Mumbai-400083. New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAACH0968B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 The D.C.I.T.-14(2)(1), Hindustan Construction 432, AayakarBhavan, 4th Vs. Co. Ltd.,Hincon House, 11th floor, M.K. Marg, Floor,247 Park, L.B.S. Mumbai-400020. Marg, Vikhroli (West),…

Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2351/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Hindustan Construction Co. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd.,Hincon House, L.B.S. Vs. Income Tax-14(2)(1), Marg, Vikhroli (West), 4Th Floor, Aayakarbhavan, Mumbai-400083. New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaach0968B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 The D.C.I.T.-14(2)(1), Hindustan Construction 432, Aayakarbhavan, 4Th Vs. Co. Ltd.,Hincon House, 11Th Floor, M.K. Marg, Floor,247 Park, L.B.S. Mumbai-400020. Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Aaach0968B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. H.P. Mahajani / Ms. Shweta Mahadik, ARsFor Respondent: Mr. Anand Mohan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Hindustan Construction Co. Assistant Commissioner of Ltd.,Hincon House, L.B.S. Vs. Income Tax-14(2)(1), Marg, Vikhroli (West), 4th floor, AayakarBhavan, Mumbai-400083. New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAACH0968B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 The D.C.I.T.-14(2)(1), Hindustan Construction 432, AayakarBhavan, 4th Vs. Co. Ltd.,Hincon House, 11th floor, M.K. Marg, Floor,247 Park, L.B.S. Mumbai-400020. Marg, Vikhroli (West),…

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur vs. ACIT, Trichy

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

ITA 54/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 54/Chny/2018 "नधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Registered & Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle 2(1), Karur 639002. Tiruchirapalli. Pan : Aaact 3373J

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…TA Nos. 1788 & 4722/Del/2012; ITA Nos. 2406/Del/2013; ITA Nos. 2469/Del/2014; ITA nos. 2469/Del/2011; ITA No. 4718/Del/2012 and ITA Nos 2966/Del/2013 dated 09.01.2019, on due analysis of the Supreme Court decisions in the case Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT 402 ITR 640 including the decision of Pr. CIT vs State Bank of Patiala etc., held that no disallowance u/s. 14A is permissible in terms of Rule 8D where the assessee’s are engaged in banking business. Since, the assessee is engaged in the business of banking, therefore, following the above decisions we hold that no disallowance can be made u/s. 14A and henc…

DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

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

ITA 3197/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 54/Chny/2018 "नधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Registered & Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle 2(1), Karur 639002. Tiruchirapalli. Pan : Aaact 3373J

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…TA Nos. 1788 & 4722/Del/2012; ITA Nos. 2406/Del/2013; ITA Nos. 2469/Del/2014; ITA nos. 2469/Del/2011; ITA No. 4718/Del/2012 and ITA Nos 2966/Del/2013 dated 09.01.2019, on due analysis of the Supreme Court decisions in the case Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT 402 ITR 640 including the decision of Pr. CIT vs State Bank of Patiala etc., held that no disallowance u/s. 14A is permissible in terms of Rule 8D where the assessee’s are engaged in banking business. Since, the assessee is engaged in the business of banking, therefore, following the above decisions we hold that no disallowance can be made u/s. 14A and henc…

Sharekhan Commodities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5286/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Sharekhan Commodities Pvt. Ltd; 10Th Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Floor, Beta Building, Lodha 1 Thik Techno Circle-3(3), Park, Opp. Kanjumarg Station, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 042. Pan – Aafcs6396F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…sfaction with regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee, the ld. A.R had relied on a host of judicial pronouncements viz. (i). Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC); (ii). Maxoppp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (Sc); (iii). Pr. CIT Vs. Bajaj Finance Ltd. (2019) 309 CTR (Bom) 28; (iv). Pr. CIT Vs. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. (2017) 251 Taxman 68 P a g e | 4 ITA No. 5286/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 Sharekhan Commodities Pvt. LtdPvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC3(3) (Bom); (v). H.T Media Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT (2017) 399 ITR 576 (Del); (v…