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

ACIT 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 1036/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…

Praham India LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3416/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

Section 36(1)(iii)

…re, learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in restricting the disallowance to the exempt income earned during the year. In support of such contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v/s CIT, [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC). 14. The learned Authorised Representative strongly supporting the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted, as per the settled legal principle, disallowance under section 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income earned during the relevant year. In support of such contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delh…

DCIT 9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Atlanta Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue for the A

ITA 7257/MUM/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma

Section 115JSection 14A

…hether strategic investments made by the assessee to hold control and whether such investments can be excluded from the purview of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D is now settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited, v. CIT [402 ITR 640]. Thus, respectfully following the said decision, we reverse the findings of C.O. No. 23/MUM/2019 M/s. Atlanta Ltd., the Ld.CIT(A) on this contention and hold that even the strategic investments shall have to be considered for the purpose of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of I.T. Rules. This contention of the Revenue is accepted and allowed.…

DCIT 9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Atlanta Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue for the A

ITA 7176/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma

Section 115JSection 14A

Suashish Diamonds Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by

ITA 7508/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 115JSection 14A

…is further supported from the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the Case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81(Bom.)(HC) and also from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxoff Investment Ltd. vs CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640(SC) where it was held that in those cases, where the AO has not accepted suo-moto disallowances computed by the assessee, then the AO is required to record his satisfaction having regard to the books of accounts of the assessee that disallowance computed by the assessee is not correct. 20. The Ld. DR on the other hand, strongly supporting orde…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2749/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel

Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…sing Officer and further submitted that in so far as strategic investments are concerned, the same cannot be removed for the purpose of calculating the disallowance in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd v/s CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC). He further submitted that the assessee has to establish the nexus and the link between the borrowed funds and its utilization so as to prove that all the investments yielding investment income has been made out of surplus funds and interest bearing fund has been used purely for the business purposes. 10. We have heard the rival submissions…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2126/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel

Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

Phulchand Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 3184/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Neil Phillip

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no. 3184/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Phulchand Exports Pvt. Ltd. Electric Mansion, 2nd Floor Appasaheb Marathe Marg ……………. Appellant Worli, Mumbai 400 025 PAN – AAACP2529C v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–3(2)(2), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri S.L. Jain Revenue by : Shri Neil Phillip Date of Hearing – 15.05.2019 Date of Order – 24.05.2019 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee cha…

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1120/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 1222/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 1221/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2015-16) DCIT 2(1)(1) M/s. Bank of Baroda Vs. Aayakar Bhavan C-26, G-Block M.K. Road Baroda Corporate Centre Mumbai-400 020. Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East Mumbai-400 051. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 1120/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 1121/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2015-16) M/s. Bank of Baroda DCIT 2(1)(1) Vs. C-26, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Baroda Corporate Centre M.K. Road Bandra Kurl…

DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. La Fin Financial Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that Cross Objections of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5711/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5711/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) The Dy. Commissioner Of La-Fin Financial Services Income Tax, Central Circle - Pvt. Ltd. 4(3)(2) 202, B-6, Kamla Nagar, Vs. R. No. 649, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Kandiwali (West), Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 067 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaacl2320D प्रत्याक्षेप M./ Co No. 357/Mum/2018 (Arising In Ita No. 5711/Mum/2017 For Ay 2013-14) La-Fin Financial Services Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, Central Circle - 202, B-6, Kamla Nagar, 4(3)(2) Vs. Kandiwali (West), R. No. 649, 6Th Floor, Mumbai-400 067 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400 020 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Satischandra Rajore, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.Subramanian, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13-05-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2019 Co. 357/Mum/2018 Aadosa / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Satischandra Rajore, DRFor Respondent: Shri M.Subramanian, AR

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स ुंह, न्याययक दस्य एवुं श्री एन. के. प्रिान लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI NK PRADHAN, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 5711/Mum/2017 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2013-14) The Dy. Commissioner of La-Fin Financial Services Income Tax, Central Circle - Pvt. Ltd. 4(3)(2) 202, B-6, Kamla Nagar, Vs. R. No. 649, 6th Floor, Aayakar Kandiwali (West), Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 067 .. (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. AAACL2320D प्रत्य…

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lavasa Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3491/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT 14(2)(1), M/s. Lavasa Corporation 432, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd., 4th Floor, Hincon House, L.B.S Vs. M.K. Marg, Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Vikhroli (West), Mumbai – 400 083 PAN: AABCT 4435E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Lavasa Corporation CIT(A)-22, Ltd., Earnest House, Hincon House, Nariman Point, Vs. L.B.S Marg, Mumbai - 400021 Vikhroli (West), Mumbai – 400 083 PAN: AABCT 4435E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: As…

Capricon Realty Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle -2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2954/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Phadke-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Neil Philip – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ortified by two leading judgements of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered under identical circumstances which could be cited as follows: - (i) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111 (ii) Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT [12/02/2018 91 Taxmann.com 154] In the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Court has observed as under: - 37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken for the Assessment Year 2002-2003. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules merely prescribe…

Rajshri Productions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-2013

ITA 4647/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Rajshri Productions Pvt. Ltd., The Asstt. Commissioner Of Bhavana 1St Floor, 442, Income Tax -16(1), Veer Savarkar Road, Prabhadevi, Room No. 439, Aayakar Mumbai - 400025 Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pan: Aaacr4139G Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dilkhush Malesha (ARs)For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14A

…urposes of determining the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, ignoring the fact that some of the investment did not earn exempt income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. Assessment Year: 2012-13 CIT 402 ITR 640(SC) has categorically held that the AO can only disallow the expenses proportionate to earning exempt income. Since, the working of the authorities below are not in accordance with the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court, we set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and send this issue back to the AO for determining the same a…

Ratan Lal Gaggar, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 22, Kolkata

In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1512/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godarai.T.A. No.1512/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member I.T.A. No.1512/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ratanlal Gaggar………………….....................………………………………Appellant [PAN : ADVPG 9976 H] Vs. DCIT, Circle-22, Kolkata................................................……….............…...Respondent Appearances by: Shri Ajay Gaggar, AR, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Shri Robin Choudhury, Sr. DR, Addl.CIT, appearing on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : April 9th, 2019 Date of pronouncing the or…

ACIT, CC-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Fort Project Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2248/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) I.T.A. No. 2248/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member) I.T.A. No. 2248/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata..............………..........Appellant Vs. M/s. Fort Project Pvt. Ltd..........................................……………......………………..………..……….Respondent 7/1A, Hazra Road Kolkata – 700 026 [PAN : AAACF 3620 N] Appearances by: Shri Sunil Sharma, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT, D/R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue…

M/S Sivan Securities Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(3), Bangalore

ITA 715/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 14ASection 37

…ess of dealing in shares and therefore, section 14A is not applicable in the present case. At this juncture, it was pointed out by the bench that as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment Vs. CIT as reported in [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC), it was held that if expenditure is incurred on earning dividend income, then that much of the expenditure which is attributable to the dividend income has to be ITA Nos. 713 to 715/Bang/2018 Page 6 of 12 disallowed and cannot be treated as business expenditure as per the provisions of section 14A of IT Act. The bench pointed out that as per…

M/S Sivan Securities Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(3), Bangalore

ITA 714/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 14ASection 37

M/S Sivan Securities Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(3), Bangalore

ITA 713/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 14ASection 37

DCIT, Cir-6(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Williamson Magor & Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand partly allowed

ITA 99/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 14A

…ies for strategic business purposes vis a vis the applicability of provisions of section 14A of the Act are now settled in favour of the Revenue by the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT reported in (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). Hence the applicability of provisions of Section 14A of the Act vis-à-vis strategic investment in shares cannot be ruled out in the instant case. The Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee however claimed that although Section 14A may be applicable to strategic investments but he urged that while working out the proportionate interest d…

DCIT, Cir-6(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Williamson Magor & Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand partly allowed

ITA 100/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 14A