How many judgments cite Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT?

1,596 judgments on BharatTax cite Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (402 ITR 640), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 8D, Section 37(1), Section 1961.

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 14A Section 143(3)Section 115JB Section 8D Section 37(1)Section 1961 Section 250 Section 143(2)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 14a(1)section 14a(2)strategic investment disallowance under section 14a disallowance u/s 14a section 10(34)section 14a section 36(1)(vii)section 40a(2)enduring benefit book profits section 115j

Judgments citing Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

Arya Offshore Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5827/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5827/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2015-16) Arya Offshore Services Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, Central Centre Unit No. 801, Godrej 6(4), Room No. 1925, 19Th बनाम/ Coliseum, C-Wing, Off Floor, Air India Building, Vs. Somaiya Hospital Road, Nariman Point, Sion Mumbai-400 022 Mumbai-400 021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaaca1034D अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Hitesh Trivedi, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri S. Michael Jerald, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2020 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Trivedi, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Michael Jerald, DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…restricting the disallowance at ₹4,95,439/- to the extent of dividend income as against disallowance made by the AO at ₹27,36,114/-. We noted that the CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) held that this strategic investment and this stock-in-trade is not an investment to earn dividend income but to gain control over the investee company. But that does not appear to be relevant factor in determining the issue and fact remain that the assessee has earned dividend income which is not taxable and hence Hon’ble Supreme Court held…

DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai vs. Rane Holdings Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2888/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2888/Chny/2017 & C.O. No.27/Chny/2018 (In I.T.A. No.2888/Chny/2017) "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

Section 14A

…ing Officer to exclude the investment made in the subsidiary companies by placing reliance on the order of this Tribunal in EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. v. DCIT 2013 (9) TMI 604. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640, the Ld. D.R. submitted that even if the investment was made in the subsidiary companies or in strategic investments, the provisions of Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') is applicable. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) is not correct in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the investments m…

ACIT, Circle - 5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 184/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(2), Kolkata……………......….………....…........Appellant Vs. M/S. Hindusthan National Glass & Industries...........................................……………….....Respondent 2, Red Cross Place Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aaach 7557 G] Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 31St, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 14ASection 250Section 80ISection 92B

…f law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme This decision is against the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme This decision is against the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT ( 2018) 402 ITR 640 Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT ( 2018) 402 ITR 640 Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT ( 2018) 402 ITR 640 and hence has to be reversed. Nevertheless, the second argument of the assessee that no disallowance ertheless, the second argument of the assessee that no disallowance ertheless, the second argument of the assessee that no disallowance can be made…

ACIT, Circle - 6(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Williamson Magor & Company Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s cross

ITA 2258/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250

…Court in the this is no more good law, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the this is no more good law, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CI Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT ( 2018) 402 ITR 640. Hence, this part of the order Hence, this part of the order of the ld. CIT(A), is hereby reversed and the ground of the revenue is allowed. of the ld. CIT(A), is hereby reversed and the ground of the revenue is allowed. of the ld. CIT(A), is hereby reversed and the ground of the revenue is allowed. 7. We now take up the disallowance under Rule 8…

Oriental Aromatics Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State Bank of Patiala also fail, though law in this respect has been clarified herei...

ITA 687/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 1039/Mum/2015 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 687/Mum/2016 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Oriental Aromatics Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of (Amalgamated With Camphor Income-Tax & Allied Products Limited. Circle-1(2)(2), Mumbai Changed Its Name To Oriental बनाम/ Aromatics Limited) Vs. Jehangir Bldg., 2Nd Floor 133, M.G. Road, Mumbai-400 001 (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaaco4618F अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vipti T. Patel, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri. Pavan Kumar Veerla, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2019 A A D O S A / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vipti T. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Pavan Kumar Veerla, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92CSection 92E

…f ₹3090/-, he disallowed balance expenses of ₹25,05.072/-. The learned Counsel for the assessee before us relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case 10 | P a g e ITAs No.1039/Mum/2015 687/Mum/2016 of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC), wherein it is held as under: - “39. In those cases, where shares are held as stock-in-trade, the main purpose is to trade in those shares and earn profits therefrom. However, we are not concerned with those profits which would naturally be treated as 'income' under the head 'profits and gains from business and profession'. What happens is…

Sunil Hingorani, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 5951/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Shri Sunil Hingorani Vs Ito-16(1)(4), 104, Nibhana Annex, Room No. 438, Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 050 New Marine Lines, Pan : Aaaph1482P Mumbai -400020 Appellant Respondednt

Section 14A

…olcim (P.) Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi) and held that disallowances under section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income of that year. This decision follows the ratio and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CI T[2018] 402 ITR 640/254 Taxman 325/91 taxmann.com 154. Considering the aforesaid decisions of the 4 ITA 5951/Mum/2018-Sunil Hingorani Superior Courts, we direct the AO to restrict the disallowances under section 14A to the extent of Exempt income. In the result the ground No.1 of the appeal is allowed. 6. Ground No.2 relates to treating the income from Palkit Impe…

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Brand Marketing (India) P.Ltde, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is

ITA 780/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahaveer Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(1)

…ed any exempt income during the year. Hence, in our considered opinion, the provisions of Sec. 14A of the Act cannot be made applicable. This issue is now very well settled by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC). Accordingly the ground No.1 raised by the revenue is dismissed. ITA Nos. 780/Mum/2016, AY 2010-11 519/Mum/2017, AY 2011-12 339/Mum/2017, AY 2012-13 & 729/Mum/2016, AY 2012-13 4. Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is with regard to the action of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of share premium and share capital added by the Ld. A.O…

The Supreme Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4673/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh

Section 115JSection 14ASection 32Section 37(1)Section 43(6)Section 45Section 51Section 80

…s considered and proportionate reduction is done. 22. In this regard, we note that the assessee’s plea of relief on account of strategic investment is no longer sustainable in view of the Hon'ble Court’s decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC). 23. As regards the claim to consider only those investments which yield exempt income, the same is acceptable on the touchstone of the Special Bench decision in the case of ACIT vs Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd., 58 ITR(T) 313 (Delhi –Trib.)(SB) 24. However, since the assessee has not accepted the learned CIT(A)’s order and the learned CIT(…

Techprocess Payment Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 6733/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6733/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6734/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6735/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Techprocess Payment Services Ltd. Dcit-14(3)(1) Mehra Industrial Estate Mumbai बनाम Bdg. No. 1, 2Nd Floor / Vs. J.K.Textile, Lbs Marg Vikhroli (W), Mumbai – 400 079 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcb-5216-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa R. Gandhi – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…d a fact of non- satisfaction without adducing cogent reasons / elaborations as to why the methodology adopted by the assessee was not acceptable. Reliance could be placed on the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. V/s CIT (2018 402 ITR 640) wherein it has categorically been held that recording of satisfaction is a pre-requisite before invoking disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D. The pertinent observations of Hon’ble Court were 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…

Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1250/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234D

…ubmitted that no disallowance u/s.14A of the Act can be made in respect of investments made in subsidiary company as strategic investments. He further submitted that ratio decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT, (2018) 402 ITR 640 is not applicable to the present case. Finally, ld. Authorised Representative contended that for the purpose of computing average value of investments, the amount of disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r.8D, investments which yielded exempt income alone has to be considered, placing reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the ca…

Kotak Mahindra Asset Managemaent Co .Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (Hq)(Judl)Pr. CIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13

ITA 5239/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh Irani & Chetan Kakka (ARs)For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar (DR)

Section 143Section 14A

…far as the nature of investments viz. strategic investments/stock-in-trade is concerned, we find that the controversy stood settled by the recent decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in group of cases titled as Maxopp Investments Ltds. Vs. CIT [ 12/02/2018 91 Taxmann.com 154], wherein Hon’ble Court has expressed in view that the nature of investments would be of no relevant while computing disallowance u/s 14A. Therefore, the plea as raised by Ld. Sr. Counsel on these lines would also be of no help to the assessee. 4.6 However, in terms of the decisions of Special Bench of The Tribunal rendered in ACIT Vs. Vi…

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

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed in terms of our directions contained in the preceding

ITA 2282/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…ioner of Income Tax vs. McDonalds India Pvt. Ltd., ITA 725/2018 decided on 22nd October, 2018 cannot exceed the exempt income of that year. This decision follows the ratio and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 44 M/s. Religare Securities Ltd. vs ACIT (SC) and the earlier judgments of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 and CIT vs. Holcim Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR (Del.) 282. Relevant portion of the judgment in McDonalds India Pvt. Ltd.(supra) reads:- "8. The decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (Supra) is significant…

M/S. Pepsico India Holding Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 6077/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri K.N. Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…ar under consideration is assessment year 2007-08. Rule 8D was introduced by virtue of notification No. 45/2008 dated 24.3.2008 and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held this rule to be prospective in operation in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT in 402 ITR 640. The AO has calculated the disallowance u/s 14A by adopting the procedure given in Rule 8D. It is the assessee’s plea that the disallowance in any case could not have exceeded the exempt income. We are in total agreement with the contention of the Ld. AR that Rule 8D could not have been applied in assessment year 2007-08. We also concur with the…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kakinada vs. Cresco Technology Private Limited, Balabadrapuram

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 513/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam11 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Cresco Technology Pvt. Kakinada. Ltd., D.No. 8-256, Tata Nagar, Balabadrapuram, East Godavari District. Pan No. Aaacc 9848 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR

Section 14Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT, Circle-1, vs. M/s. Cresco Technology Pvt. Kakinada. Ltd., D.No. 8-256, Tata Nagar, Balabadrapuram, East Godavari District. PAN No. AAACC 9848 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri G.V.N. Hari – Advocate. Department By : Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR Date of hearing : 28/10/2019. Date of pronouncement : 11/12/2019. O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner…

ACIT, Ltu - 2, Kolkata vs. M/S. Uco Bank, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 584/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 201Section 40

…ls) deleting the similar disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. D.R. has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited –vs.- CIT [402 ITR 640] to contend that the relevant shares having been held by the assessee as 3 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 M/s. UCO Bank stock-in-trade, disallowance under section 14A is liable to be made as rightly held by the Assessing Officer. It is, however, observed that this aspect has already been considered by the Tribunal while deciding a similar issue in…

Gajanan Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

ITA 5599/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodgajanan Enterprises, 4Th Floor, Rustom Acit, Circle-17(1), Building, 29, Veer Nariman Road, Fort, Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aakfg7595A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash K.Jotwani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.Vinod Kumar, ld. Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…d as stock-in-trade by the assessee was to be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance under Sec.14A was no more res integra pursuant to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT, New Delhi (2018) 402 ITR 640(SC), the CIT(A) was of the P a g e | 3 ITA No.5599/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Gajanan Enterprises Vs. ACIT, Circle 17(1) view that no infirmity did emerge from the working of the disallowance under Sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D by the A.O. Accordingly, the CIT(A) upheld the assessment order and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the o…

M/S. Paliwal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1292/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. and Shri V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ITA Nos.- 3572/Del/ 2014 and 1292/Del/2015. M/s Paliwal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 3572/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s Paliwal Infrastructure Additional Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, B-14, Greater Kailash-I, Range-14, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN No: AABCR7764E APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No:- 1292/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s Paliwal Infrastructure Deputy Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, B-14, Greater Kailash…

M/S. Paliwal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3572/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. and Shri V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

Smt. Kavita Dipesh Shah, Surat vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.219/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Kavita Dipesh Shah, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 1, Vishal House, Next To Gautam Income-Tax- 2, Surat Market, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat. [Pan: Anhps 4998 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P. Singh, Cit(D.R.)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 57Section 8D

…Kavita Dipesh Shah v. Pr. CIT-2 Surat /ITA No.219/SRT/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 Page 1 of 16 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.219/SRT/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Kavita Dipesh Shah, Vs. Principal Commissioner of 1, Vishal House, Next to Gautam Income-Tax- 2, Surat Market, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat. [PAN: ANHPS 4998 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by Shri O.P…

Shri Dipesh L. Shah, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.218/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Dipesh L Shah, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 1, Vishal House, Next To Gautam Income-Tax- 2, Surat Market, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road Surat [Pan: Afsps 3839J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Prasenjit Singh, Cit(D.R.)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 57Section 8D

…Dipesh L Shah v. Pr. CIT-2 Surat /ITA No.218/SRT/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 Page 1 of 15 आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,सुरत"यायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.218/SRT/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Dipesh L Shah, Vs. Principal Commissioner of 1, Vishal House, Next To Gautam Income-Tax- 2, Surat Market, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road Surat [PAN: AFSPS 3839J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by Shri Prasenjit Singh, CIT(…