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

City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam vs. ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1129/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

…provisions of Section 14A of the Act cannot be applied in case of exempt income earned from investment held in stock in trade. Reasoning of the ld. CIT(A) has been overturned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT, (2018) 402 ITR 640. Therefore contention of the assessee that provisions of Section 14A of the Act cannot be invoked, when the securities are held as stock-in-trade, cannot be accepted. As regards to other limb of the argument of the assessee that in the absences of any finding by the Assessing Officer as to how the contention of the assessee that no expenditure wa…

Shilpa Ajaykumar Parasrampuria, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 640/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, Sr.DR
Section 10(14)(ii)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.638 and 640/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2012-13 and 2014-15 Shilpa Ajaykumar Parasrampuria ITO, Ward-3(3)(4) Ahmedabad. B-104, Satellite Centre Vs. Premchandnagar Road Vastrapur, Ahmedabad. PAN : AAVPP 9655 P (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Keyur Patel, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 14/06/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 05/07/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUD…

Shilpa Ajaykumar Parasrampuria, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 638/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, Sr.DR
Section 10(14)(ii)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.638 and 640/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2012-13 and 2014-15 Shilpa Ajaykumar Parasrampuria ITO, Ward-3(3)(4) Ahmedabad. B-104, Satellite Centre Vs. Premchandnagar Road Vastrapur, Ahmedabad. PAN : AAVPP 9655 P (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Keyur Patel, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 14/06/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 05/07/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUD…

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Futura Value Retail Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 6705/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6705/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit-9(3)(2), M/S. Future Value 418, 4Th Floor, Retail Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Knowledge House, V. Mumbai-400020 Shyam Nagar, Off Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400060 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaecp3041P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Sushil Kumar Poddar (Dr) Assessee By: Ms. Dinkle Hariya सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 6705/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.08.2016, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16,Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Ita No. Cit(A)/ I.T.305/Dcit-9(3)(2)/2015-16, For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.6705/Mum/2016

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri. Sushil Kumar Poddar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194HSection 194JSection 40

…s u/s 14A also on the ground of strategic investment being made by the assessee which issue/proposition is no more res-integra , as it is now decided by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in favour of Revenue in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2018) 402 ITR 640(SC). 13.3 The Ld. counsel for assessee submitted in rejoinder that Mumbai- tribunal in assessee‟s own case in DCIT v. Future Value Retail Limited in ITA no. 3968/Mum/2015 for immediately preceding year viz. AY 2011-12 vide order dated 31.05.2017 had deleted disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I962 Rules as…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Punj Lloyd Aviation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 185/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Senior DR
Section 114Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT, SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.185/Del./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) DCIT, Circle 20 (1), vs. M/s. Punj Lloyd Aviation Private Ltd., New Delhi. 17 – 18, Punj Lloyd House, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019. (PAN : AAECP2851M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Rajat Jain, CA Shri Akshat Jain, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Surender Pal, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 10.06.2019 Date of Order : 02.07.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, DCIT, Circle 20 (…

ACIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Navyug Krishi Sadhan P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2656/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.2656 /Mum/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit 13(1)(1), Navyug Krishi Sadhan Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Aspee House, B J Patel Road, Vs. Malad (W), Mumbai 400 064 Pan : Aaacn2326D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt Jothilakshmi NayakFor Respondent: Shri B P Purohit
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 44A

…8D(2(iii), as the purpose of investment was to gain control over the subsidiary. We are not in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A) as the same is against the decision made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 402 ITR 640. In our opinion, the AO has rightly computed the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and made the disallowance accordingly. We, are therefore, inclined to set aside the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue and uphold the order of the AO. The AO is directed to allow the deduction of suo-moto disallowance of expenses of Rs.85,000/- from the disall…

DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. K. Girdharilal International Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4039/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita No.4039/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S.K.Girdharlal International Tax-5(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.571, 5Th Floor 1011, Prasad Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan Opera House, M.K.Road, Mumbai -400020 Mumbai – 400 004 स्थामी रेखा सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacck6101F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…s of the assessee and restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income. 4. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. We find that this issue is now well settled by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC) wherein it was held that the disallowance u/s.14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income and hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 5. The ground No.2 raised by the revenue is with regard to disallowance u/s.14A of the Act vis-à-vis com…

Entertainment Network (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 852/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri. R. Manjunatha Swamy &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…rred in relation to earning of an exempt income by invoking provisions of Section 14A, does not hold merit as the issue is no more res-integra keeping in view decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited v. CIT reported in (2018) 402 ITR 640(SC) and hence this contention of the assessee stood rejected. We have observed that the assessee has claimed that no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the impugned assessment year and hence in view of decision(s) of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 33(Delhi) and in the case Jo…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 812/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri. R. Manjunatha Swamy &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…rred in relation to earning of an exempt income by invoking provisions of Section 14A, does not hold merit as the issue is no more res-integra keeping in view decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited v. CIT reported in (2018) 402 ITR 640(SC) and hence this contention of the assessee stood rejected. We have observed that the assessee has claimed that no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the impugned assessment year and hence in view of decision(s) of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 33(Delhi) and in the case Jo…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Raichur vs. Shri G J Fernandez, Raichur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for Assessment Year 2013-14 is partly allowed and for Assessment Year 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 902/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Subash K.R., JCIT (DR)
Section 14A

…n be seen that there is no exempt income earned by assessee in this year. The ld. DR of revenue supported the assessment order and he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment Vs. CIT as reported in [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We first examine this factual aspect as to whether any exempt income was earned by assessee in the A. Y. 2013 - 14 or not. As per the audited P&L account for this year as available on page 2 of the paper book, the assessee has earned other income of Rs. 136,92,304/- and its details are as per Sch…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Raichur vs. Shri G J Fernandez, Raichur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for Assessment Year 2013-14 is partly allowed and for Assessment Year 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 901/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Subash K.R., JCIT (DR)
Section 14A

…n be seen that there is no exempt income earned by assessee in this year. The ld. DR of revenue supported the assessment order and he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment Vs. CIT as reported in [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We first examine this factual aspect as to whether any exempt income was earned by assessee in the A. Y. 2013 - 14 or not. As per the audited P&L account for this year as available on page 2 of the paper book, the assessee has earned other income of Rs. 136,92,304/- and its details are as per Sch…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon

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

ITA 5718/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2010-11] The A. C.I.T Vs. Oriental Bank Of Commerce Circle – 19(1), Central Account Office 2Nd New Delhi Floor, Plot No. 5, Institutional Area, Gurgaon Pan No: Aaaco 0191 M [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER [A.Y 2010-11] The A. C.I.T Vs. Oriental bank of Commerce Circle – 19(1), Central Account Office 2nd New Delhi Floor, Plot No. 5, Institutional Area, Gurgaon PAN No: AAACO 0191 M [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 13.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 14.06.2019 Assessee by : Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, CA Revenue by : Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: With this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the correctness of…

Dalmia Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5107/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dalmia Finance Ltd. Addl. Cit C/O. Vinod Kumar Bindal & Vs Special Range-3 Co. Chartered Accountants, New Delhi D-219, Vivek Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi-110095 Pan No. Aabcd5533H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dalmia Finance Ltd. Addl. CIT C/o. Vinod Kumar Bindal & Vs Special Range-3 Co. Chartered Accountants, New Delhi D-219, Vivek Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi-110095 PAN No. AABCD5533H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA Ms. Rinky Sharma, ITP Respondent by Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 09/05/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 13/06/2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.05.2018 of th…

Ajmera Realty & Infra India Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-2(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2415/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore - Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…1 आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण “ए” "यायपीठ अिधकरण "यायपीठ "यायपीठ मुंबई "यायपीठ मुंबई मुंबई म"। मुंबई म"। म"। म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय माननीय ौी सी. एन. ूसाद,"याियक सदःय एवं माननीय माननीय एवं एवं एवं माननीय माननीय ौी मनोज कुमार अमवाल ,लेखा सदःय के सम"। माननीय माननीय BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2415/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) वष" & आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2414/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"…

Ajmera Realty & Infra India Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-2(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2414/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore - Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…1 आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण “ए” "यायपीठ अिधकरण "यायपीठ "यायपीठ मुंबई "यायपीठ मुंबई मुंबई म"। मुंबई म"। म"। म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय माननीय ौी सी. एन. ूसाद,"याियक सदःय एवं माननीय माननीय एवं एवं एवं माननीय माननीय ौी मनोज कुमार अमवाल ,लेखा सदःय के सम"। माननीय माननीय BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2415/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) वष" & आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2414/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"…

M/S Deepak Cales Inda Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

ITA 1286/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234Section 36Section 41

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. and APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year 1285 /Bang/2016 M/s. Deepak Cables India Ltd., The Additional Commissioner 2011-12 #07, N S Iyengar Street, of Income-Tax, Seshadripuram, Range – 11, Bangalore – 560 020. Bangalore. PAN : AACCD 6466 C 1286/Bang/2016 The Deputy Commissioner of 2012-13 -do- Income-Tax, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore. Assessee by : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, CA Revenue by : Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 21.03.2019 Date o…

M/S Deepak Cales Inda Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

ITA 1285/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234Section 36Section 41

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. and APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year 1285 /Bang/2016 M/s. Deepak Cables India Ltd., The Additional Commissioner 2011-12 #07, N S Iyengar Street, of Income-Tax, Seshadripuram, Range – 11, Bangalore – 560 020. Bangalore. PAN : AACCD 6466 C 1286/Bang/2016 The Deputy Commissioner of 2012-13 -do- Income-Tax, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore. Assessee by : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, CA Revenue by : Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 21.03.2019 Date o…

Aker Powergas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 957/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Peripurna, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92CSection 92C(1)

…made unless and until the AO is satisfied that there is expenses relatable to exempt income which need to be disallowed. The learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC). 11. We noted from the authorities below that there is neither any whisper about the satisfaction nor any expenditure incurred by assessee in relation to any exempt income is pointed out in the assessment order. Even, the authorities below have not gone into the details filed by the assessee or the accounts of the assessee for the purpose o…

DCIT Cir 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aker Powergas P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 183/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Peripurna, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92CSection 92C(1)

…made unless and until the AO is satisfied that there is expenses relatable to exempt income which need to be disallowed. The learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC). 11. We noted from the authorities below that there is neither any whisper about the satisfaction nor any expenditure incurred by assessee in relation to any exempt income is pointed out in the assessment order. Even, the authorities below have not gone into the details filed by the assessee or the accounts of the assessee for the purpose o…

Aker Powergas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1071/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Peripurna, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92CSection 92C(1)

…made unless and until the AO is satisfied that there is expenses relatable to exempt income which need to be disallowed. The learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC). 11. We noted from the authorities below that there is neither any whisper about the satisfaction nor any expenditure incurred by assessee in relation to any exempt income is pointed out in the assessment order. Even, the authorities below have not gone into the details filed by the assessee or the accounts of the assessee for the purpose o…