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.

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 640)

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. International Hospital Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1359/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri R.M.Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, Sr. DR

Section 14A

…sion of the Hon'ble High Court, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance. 9. Before us, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd 402 ITR 640. 10. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. 11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that during the year under consideration, no exempt income was earned by the assessee. It is equally true that the decision of th…

Oriental Aromatics Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 1(2)(2), 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 1039/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

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: 06.12.2019 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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pnb Housing Finance Ltd., New Delhi

In the result we do not find any merit in ground No

ITA 2810/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR

Section 115OSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A

…e Act. 7. Ld CIT(A) also upheld the same despite the fact it was submitted that investments are held by assessee as stock in trade. In the present case the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Maxoop Investment Ltd Vs. CIT 402 ITR 640 wherein, in para No. 40 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has dealt with the same issue. It has been held that when the share are held as stock in trade, it becomes the business activity of the assessee. Whether the dividend earned or not is immaterial. It would be „quirk of fate‟ if the dividend is received. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court thus held that in s…

M/S Pnb Housing Finance Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result we do not find any merit in ground No

ITA 2123/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR

Section 115OSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A

…e Act. 7. Ld CIT(A) also upheld the same despite the fact it was submitted that investments are held by assessee as stock in trade. In the present case the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Maxoop Investment Ltd Vs. CIT 402 ITR 640 wherein, in para No. 40 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has dealt with the same issue. It has been held that when the share are held as stock in trade, it becomes the business activity of the assessee. Whether the dividend earned or not is immaterial. It would be „quirk of fate‟ if the dividend is received. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court thus held that in s…

M/S Pnb Housing Finance Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result we do not find any merit in ground No

ITA 2124/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR

Section 115OSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A

…e Act. 7. Ld CIT(A) also upheld the same despite the fact it was submitted that investments are held by assessee as stock in trade. In the present case the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Maxoop Investment Ltd Vs. CIT 402 ITR 640 wherein, in para No. 40 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has dealt with the same issue. It has been held that when the share are held as stock in trade, it becomes the business activity of the assessee. Whether the dividend earned or not is immaterial. It would be „quirk of fate‟ if the dividend is received. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court thus held that in s…

Forever Flourishing Finance & Inv. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4933/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 14A

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 4933/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Forever Flourishing Finance DCIT, CC-3(4) Vs. & Inv. P. Ltd. Room No. 1915 A/401, Pearl Arcade 19th Floor Opp. P.K. Jewellers Air India Building Dawood Baugh Lane Nariman Point Andheri West Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 058. PAN :AAACF3117Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri R.C. Jain Department by Shri Chaitanya Anjaria Date of Hearing 04.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement 02.12.2019 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the assessee…

K.Vinoth Kannan DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Express News Papers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 1483/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1483/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. “Express Estates”, Mount Road, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaace 1702 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate

Section 10(35)Section 14A

…disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by following his predecessor’s order in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2013-14. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640, the Ld. D.R. submitted that even to the investments in subsidiary companies, the provisions of Section 14A would be applicable. Referring to Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Income-tax Rules, 1962 as it stood at the relevant point of time, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the expenditure incurred by the assessee in earning exempted income irrespective of the fac…

DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Company Limited, Kolkata

ITA 147/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 147&109 & C.O Nos.35 & 36/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Ltd. M/S Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co. Company Limited, 4, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata – 700001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm9443R (Appellant) .. (Respondent/Cross-Objector)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Chetan Mehta, FCA, Ashish Jain, FCA &

Section 115JSection 144C(3)Section 92B

…s the third head of administrative expenditure disallowance. The assessee’s case as per its argument extracted hereinabove is that it had made impugned investment as a strategic move only. Hon’ble apex court’s decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) holds that the purpose of making exempt income yielding investments is no more a guiding factor, we therefore decline the assessee’s foregoing argument. The fact also remains that this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s decision in REI Agro Ltd. vs. DCIT 144 ITD 141 (Kol) holds that only exempt income yielding investment have to be considered for…

DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Company Limited, Kolkata

ITA 109/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 147&109 & C.O Nos.35 & 36/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Ltd. M/S Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co. Company Limited, 4, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata – 700001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm9443R (Appellant) .. (Respondent/Cross-Objector)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Chetan Mehta, FCA, Ashish Jain, FCA &

Section 115JSection 144C(3)Section 92B

…s the third head of administrative expenditure disallowance. The assessee’s case as per its argument extracted hereinabove is that it had made impugned investment as a strategic move only. Hon’ble apex court’s decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) holds that the purpose of making exempt income yielding investments is no more a guiding factor, we therefore decline the assessee’s foregoing argument. The fact also remains that this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s decision in REI Agro Ltd. vs. DCIT 144 ITD 141 (Kol) holds that only exempt income yielding investment have to be considered for…

M/S. Jayshree Finvest Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The ACIT, Circle-5, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 36/RJT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)

Section 14A

…shares as trading assets, the dividend income generated from such trading asset in not susceptible to the disallowance under s.14A of the Act. We find that the issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) has inter alia hold that Section 14A of the Act applies irrespective of whether the shares are held as stock-in-trade or as capital asset. Thus, in view of the decision ITA No. 36/Rjt/18 [M/s. Jayshree Finvest Ltd. vs. CIT(A)] A.Y. 2010-11 - 3 - of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we see no merit in the plea of the assessee. 6. In the result, t…

Tata Automcomp Systems Ltd, Pune vs. Asst CIT Ltu-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 346/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 346/Mum/2016 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Tata Autocomp Systems The Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, (Large Taxpayer House, 24, Homi Mody Unit)-2, बनाम/ Street, Fort, Vs. Mummbai-400 001 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaact1848E आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5683/Mum/2015 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Tata Autocomp Systems Income Tax, (Large Limited, Taxpayer Unit)-2, World Bombay House, 24, Homi बनाम/ Trade Centre, Centre -1 , Mody Street, Fort, Vs. 29Th Floor Cuffe Parade, Mummbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 005 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…nal in earlier assessment year i.e. AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 1666/Mum/2015 has already considered this issue and remand the matter back to the file of the AO for reconsideration of the disallowance in term of the decision of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) and Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) of Delhi High Court by observing as under in Para 13, 14 and 15 as under: - “13. We have heard the rival submissions also gone through the entire material on record. We notice that the Ld. DRP has upheld the action of the AO by following the direction issued by the Ld. DRP in the assesse…

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Tata Autocomp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5683/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 346/Mum/2016 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Tata Autocomp Systems The Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, (Large Taxpayer House, 24, Homi Mody Unit)-2, बनाम/ Street, Fort, Vs. Mummbai-400 001 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaact1848E आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5683/Mum/2015 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Tata Autocomp Systems Income Tax, (Large Limited, Taxpayer Unit)-2, World Bombay House, 24, Homi बनाम/ Trade Centre, Centre -1 , Mody Street, Fort, Vs. 29Th Floor Cuffe Parade, Mummbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 005 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…nal in earlier assessment year i.e. AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 1666/Mum/2015 has already considered this issue and remand the matter back to the file of the AO for reconsideration of the disallowance in term of the decision of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) and Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) of Delhi High Court by observing as under in Para 13, 14 and 15 as under: - “13. We have heard the rival submissions also gone through the entire material on record. We notice that the Ld. DRP has upheld the action of the AO by following the direction issued by the Ld. DRP in the assesse…

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue for the A

ITA 1839/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Ramlal Negi

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAMLAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1839 & 1840/Mum/2018 A.Ys : 2013-14 & 2014-15) & CO Nos. 82 & 83/Mum/2019 A.Ys : 2013-14 & 2014-15) बनाम/ DCIT – 14(3)(1) Reliance 455 Aayakar Bhavan, Infrastructure Ltd, Vs. M.K. Marg, Reliance Centre, Mumbai – 400020 Santa Cruze, Mumbai – 400055. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AACCR7446Q Appellant / Respondent .. Appellant / Respondent) अऩीराथी ओय से / Appellant Shri Lakshmi V. Prasad, CIT DR by : प्रत्मथी की ओय Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, AR से/Respondent by…

Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2006-07 in ITA No

ITA 5616/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri M Balaganesh, Am & Sri Ravish Sood, Jm & आयकर अपीऱ सुं./ Ita No. 5616/Mum/2012 (यनधाायण वषा / Assessment Years 2005-06) आयकर अपीऱ सुं./ Ita No. 4043/Mum/2012 (यनधाायण वषा / Assessment Years 2006-07) Tata Steel Limited Assistant Commissioner Bombay House, 24 Homi Body Of Income Tax-2(3), Street, Fort, Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Mumbai-400 001 Income Tax-2(3) Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (अपीऱार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी ऱेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaact2803M आयकर अपीऱ सुं./ Ita No. 5573/Mum/2012 (यनधाायण वषा / Assessment Years 2005-06) Assistant Commissioner Of Tata Steel Limited Income Tax-2(3), Bombay House, 24 Homi Dy. Commissioner Of Body Street, Fort, बनाम/ Mumbai-400 001 Income Tax-2(3) Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (अपीऱार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT DR

Section 143(3)

…essment order dated 28.10.2011. The learned CIT(A), however, upheld the disallowance made in sum of ₹ 11.18 crores under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. 17. We find that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) and Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd vs. DCIT reported in [2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC) had observed that the computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules could be made applicable only from AY 2008-09 onwards. Hence, there cannot be any disallowance under section 14A of the Act by applying the computation maximum provided in R…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1279/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri Aakash Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, Sr. DR

Section 14A

…dismissed. 14. In so far as the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act is concerned, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited 402 ITR 640. 15. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of the co-ordinate bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y 2011-12 and pointed out that in the case of Insurance business, provisions of section 44 of the Act override all other provisions and no disallowance u/s 14A can be made in respect of persons carr…

Tatva Gloabal Environment Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4012/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumartatva Global Environment Ltd Vs Ito-9(3)(3), (Now Known As Tatva Global Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Environment Pvt Ltd) Mumbai Uniphos House, C D Marg, Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai 400 052 Pan : Aaics1718A Appellant Respondednt Dcit, Cent.Cir.6(3), Vs Tatva Global Environment Ltd Mumbai (Now Known As Tatva Global Environment Pvt Ltd) Uniphos House, C D Marg, Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai 400 052 Pan : Aaics1718A Appellant Respondednt

Section 10(34)Section 115OSection 14ASection 56(2)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Tatva Global Environment Ltd vs ITO-9(3)(3), (Now known as Tatva Global Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Environment Pvt Ltd) Mumbai Uniphos House, C D Marg, Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai 400 052 PAN : AAICS1718A APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT DCIT, Cent.Cir.6(3), vs Tatva Global Environment Ltd Mumbai (Now known as Tatva Global Environment Pvt Ltd) Uniphos House, C D Marg, Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai 400 052 PAN : AAICS1718A APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Assessee by Shri Kirit Kamdar & Avin…

For Svl Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 6(3), Chennai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3096/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri A. Mudit Bohara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.CIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 92C

…amount of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. However, the direction of the CIT(A) to A.O. to exclude the investment in subsidiary companies cannot be upheld in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 wherein it was laid down that the strategic investments cannot be excluded from the purview of the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. Therefore, the direction of the CIT(A) stands modified to this extent. 8. As regards the ground of appeal challenging the direction of the CIT(A) that the amount of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act…

For Svl Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 6(3), Chennai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3095/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri A. Mudit Bohara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.CIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 92C

…amount of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. However, the direction of the CIT(A) to A.O. to exclude the investment in subsidiary companies cannot be upheld in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 wherein it was laid down that the strategic investments cannot be excluded from the purview of the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. Therefore, the direction of the CIT(A) stands modified to this extent. 8. As regards the ground of appeal challenging the direction of the CIT(A) that the amount of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act…

DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai vs. Shriram Venture Ltd., Chennai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3060/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri A. Mudit Bohara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.CIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 92C

…amount of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. However, the direction of the CIT(A) to A.O. to exclude the investment in subsidiary companies cannot be upheld in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 wherein it was laid down that the strategic investments cannot be excluded from the purview of the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. Therefore, the direction of the CIT(A) stands modified to this extent. 8. As regards the ground of appeal challenging the direction of the CIT(A) that the amount of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act…

DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai vs. Shriram Venture Ltd., Chennai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3059/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri A. Mudit Bohara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.CIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 92C

…amount of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. However, the direction of the CIT(A) to A.O. to exclude the investment in subsidiary companies cannot be upheld in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 wherein it was laid down that the strategic investments cannot be excluded from the purview of the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. Therefore, the direction of the CIT(A) stands modified to this extent. 8. As regards the ground of appeal challenging the direction of the CIT(A) that the amount of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act…

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

What is Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. International Hospital Ltd., New Delhi

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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pnb Housing Finance Ltd., New Delhi

M/S Pnb Housing Finance Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

M/S Pnb Housing Finance Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Forever Flourishing Finance & Inv. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 3(4), Mumbai

K.Vinoth Kannan DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Express News Papers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Company Limited, Kolkata

DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Company Limited, Kolkata

M/S. Jayshree Finvest Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The ACIT, Circle-5, Rajkot-Gujarat

Tata Automcomp Systems Ltd, Pune vs. Asst CIT Ltu-2, Mumbai

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Tata Autocomp Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd, Navi Mumbai

Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., New Delhi

Tatva Gloabal Environment Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(3), Mumbai

For Svl Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 6(3), Chennai

For Svl Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 6(3), Chennai

DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai vs. Shriram Venture Ltd., Chennai

DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai vs. Shriram Venture Ltd., Chennai