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

Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT, Range-10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years are partly

ITA 3339/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood, Assessment Years: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of Infrastructure Leasing & Income Tax-Range 10(1) Financial Services Limited बनाम/ Mumbai The Il&Fs Financial Center Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaaci-0989-F Assessment Years: 2005-06 Infrastructure Leasing & Addl. Commissioner Of Financial Services Limited Income Tax-Range 10(1) बनाम/ The Il&Fs Financial Center Mumbai Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaaci-0989-F Assessment Years: 2006-07 Addl. Commissioner Of Infrastructure Leasing & Income Tax-Range 10(1) Financial Services Limited बनाम/ Mumbai The Il&Fs Financial Center Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaaci-0989-F

Section 10(230)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI Before Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member and Shri RAVISH SOOD, Judicial Member, Assessment Years: 2005-06 ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & INCOME TAX-Range 10(1) FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED बनाम/ Mumbai The IL&FS Financial Center Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. AAACI-0989-F Assessment Years: 2005-06 INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED INCOME TAX-Range 10(1) बनाम/ The IL&FS Financial Center Mumbai Vs. Plot No.…

Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4754/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4754/Del./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) M/s. NTPC Limited, vs. DCIT, Circle 13 (1), Core – 7, SCOPE Complex, New Delhi. 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. (PAN : AAACN0255D) ITA No.4183/Del./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) DCIT, Circle 13 (1), vs. M/s. NTPC Limited, New Delhi. Core – 7, SCOPE Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. (PAN : AAACN0255D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ved Jain, Advoca…

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4183/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4754/Del./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) M/s. NTPC Limited, vs. DCIT, Circle 13 (1), Core – 7, SCOPE Complex, New Delhi. 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. (PAN : AAACN0255D) ITA No.4183/Del./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) DCIT, Circle 13 (1), vs. M/s. NTPC Limited, New Delhi. Core – 7, SCOPE Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. (PAN : AAACN0255D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ved Jain, Advoca…

Wartsila India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed and appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 696/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Wartsila India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income Tax-15(3)(1) “Wartsila India Limited) Aayakar Bhavan 21St Floor, Kesar Solitaire, Mumbai Plot No.5, Sector 19 Palm Beach Road, Sanpada Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan/Gir No.Aaacw0345D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Wartsila Diesel India Income Tax-15(3)(1) Private Limited 21St Floor, Kesar Solitaire, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai Plot No.5, Sector 19 Palm Beach Road, Sanpada Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan/Gir No.Aaacw0345D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…eed to make disallowance u/s.14A of the Act or by adopting computation mechanism provided in rule 8D(2) of the rules. This position has been made very clear by the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 402 ITR 640. 4.1 Respectfully following the aforesaid decision and in view of the fact that the ld. AO had not recorded any satisfaction with cogent reasons for rejecting the claim of the assessee that no expenditure was incurred for earning exempt income, the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act made by the ld. AO deserves to be deleted. 4.2. We also find that a…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1351/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Amount of Proposed international
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…, the disallowance as per Rule 8D needs to be deleted. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: • Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. VS. DCIT: 394 ITR 449(SC) • Maxopp Investment Ltd: 347 ITR 272 (Del.)- Affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 402 ITR 640 • H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: ITA No.548/2015 (Del.) dated 23.8.2017 • Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT: ITA No. 136/2017 dated 15.09.2017 The Ld. AR further submitted that even otherwise, there is no nexus of expenses, like interest expenditure and other administrative expenses with investments, warranting disallowance under section 14A. 63. As rega…

Parsvnath Developers Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 93/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, , AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR

…sessee has not earned any exempt income. 22. The ld. DR strongly supported the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and strongly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad 115 ITR 519 and Maxopp Investment Ltd 91 Taxmann 154. It is the say of the ld. DR that even if there is no exempt income earned during the year under consideration, the disallowance u/s 14A is imminent and the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in deleting the same. 23. On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the assessee strongly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of…

Parsvnath Developers Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 92/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, , AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR

…sessee has not earned any exempt income. 22. The ld. DR strongly supported the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and strongly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad 115 ITR 519 and Maxopp Investment Ltd 91 Taxmann 154. It is the say of the ld. DR that even if there is no exempt income earned during the year under consideration, the disallowance u/s 14A is imminent and the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in deleting the same. 23. On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the assessee strongly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of…

Parsvnath Developers Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 91/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, , AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR

…sessee has not earned any exempt income. 22. The ld. DR strongly supported the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and strongly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad 115 ITR 519 and Maxopp Investment Ltd 91 Taxmann 154. It is the say of the ld. DR that even if there is no exempt income earned during the year under consideration, the disallowance u/s 14A is imminent and the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in deleting the same. 23. On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the assessee strongly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of…

Parsvnath Developers Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 90/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, , AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR

…sessee has not earned any exempt income. 22. The ld. DR strongly supported the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and strongly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad 115 ITR 519 and Maxopp Investment Ltd 91 Taxmann 154. It is the say of the ld. DR that even if there is no exempt income earned during the year under consideration, the disallowance u/s 14A is imminent and the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in deleting the same. 23. On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the assessee strongly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Parsvnath Developers Ltd., Delhi

In the result the appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 4940/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, , AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR

…sessee has not earned any exempt income. 22. The ld. DR strongly supported the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and strongly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad 115 ITR 519 and Maxopp Investment Ltd 91 Taxmann 154. It is the say of the ld. DR that even if there is no exempt income earned during the year under consideration, the disallowance u/s 14A is imminent and the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in deleting the same. 23. On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the assessee strongly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Parsvnath Developers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 6870/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, , AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR

…sessee has not earned any exempt income. 22. The ld. DR strongly supported the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and strongly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad 115 ITR 519 and Maxopp Investment Ltd 91 Taxmann 154. It is the say of the ld. DR that even if there is no exempt income earned during the year under consideration, the disallowance u/s 14A is imminent and the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in deleting the same. 23. On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the assessee strongly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3883/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT DR
Section 142Section 147Section 153Section 153ASection 201(1)Section 36Section 40Section 40A(3)

…ly when assessee has suo motu made disallowance in return of income, ld AO has not shown as to how disallowance offered in return is incorrect. In this connection, reference may be made to decision of Apex Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) in which it was held as under : ―Having regard to language of section 14A(2), read with rule 8D of Rules, it is also made clear that before applying theory of apportionment, Assessing Officer needs to record satisfaction that having regard to kind of assessee, suo motu disallowance under section 14A was not correct. It will be in those cases…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(3), Mumbai vs. Safe Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4718/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar SinghFor Respondent: S/Shri M.M. Golvala
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…o satisfaction recorded by the AO as is evident from the assessment order. Secondly, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that no doubt the issue of stock-in-trade is now settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC), but he argued that the expenses relatable to direct expenses under Rule 8D(2)(i), as noted by the AO, are the expenditure for carrying out its business of trading in share and 6 securities, wherein the assessee has earned income more than the ₹ 5 crores. The learned Counsel stated that the expenses of security transaction tax, demat charges…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Punjab National Bank, New Delhi

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

ITA 1810/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri K. N. Chary[Assessment Year: 2012-13] The A.C.I.T. Vs. Punjab National Bank Circle – 20(1) Head Office, Finance Division New Delhi 5, Sansad Marg, New Delhi Pan No. Aaacp 0165 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Krishnan, CA

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI K. N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2012-13] The A.C.I.T. Vs. Punjab National Bank Circle – 20(1) Head Office, Finance Division New Delhi 5, Sansad Marg, New Delhi PAN No. AAACP 0165 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR Respondent by : Shri S. Krishnan, CA Shri V. Raja Kumar, Adv Date of hearing: 03/04/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 08/04/2019 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order…

M/S. New City of Bombay Mfg. Mills Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6354/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. New City Of Bombay Vs. Acit, Mfg. Mills Ltd., Circle-13(1), New Delhi 63, T.B. Kadam Marg, Mumbai. Pan :Aaccn7056J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri A.K. Srivastava, Ca Respondent By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr

Section 143(2)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. New City of Bombay Vs. ACIT, MFG. Mills Ltd., Circle-13(1), New Delhi 63, T.B. Kadam Marg, Mumbai. PAN :AACCN7056J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri A.K. Srivastava, CA Respondent by Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR Date of hearing 28.03.2019 Date of pronouncement 04.04.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 29/08/2014 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XVI, New Delhi…

M/S. Ranbaxy Holding Company, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1805/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary[Assessment Year: 2006-07]

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…8D of the Rules, the Assessing Officer computed the disallowance at Rs. 62,68,08,055/-. 8. At the very outset, we have to state that Rule 8D of the Rules is applicable from A.Y 2008-09 as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd 402 ITR 640. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in this decision, has observed as under: “34) Having clarified the aforesaid position, the first and foremost issue that falls for consideration is as to whether the dominant purpose test, which is pressed into service by the assessees would apply while interpreting Section 14A of the Act or we have to go by the theor…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ranbaxy Holding Company, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2969/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary[Assessment Year: 2006-07]

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…8D of the Rules, the Assessing Officer computed the disallowance at Rs. 62,68,08,055/-. 8. At the very outset, we have to state that Rule 8D of the Rules is applicable from A.Y 2008-09 as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd 402 ITR 640. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in this decision, has observed as under: “34) Having clarified the aforesaid position, the first and foremost issue that falls for consideration is as to whether the dominant purpose test, which is pressed into service by the assessees would apply while interpreting Section 14A of the Act or we have to go by the theor…

Yuvak Ventrures Private Limited (Successors to Aikone Marketing and Management Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 8(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 144/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Yuvak Ventures Pvt. Ltd., (As Successors To Aikone Marketing & Management Services Pvt. Ltd.,) 405/408, B ……………. Appellant Wing, Navbharat Estate Zakaria Bunder Road Sewree, Mumbai – 400 015 Pan No:Aagca6159B V/S

For Appellant: Shri. Yogesh. A.Thar &For Respondent: Shri. B.B.Rajendra Prasad &
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Yuvak Ventures Pvt. Ltd., (as successors to Aikone Marketing & Management Services Pvt. Ltd.,) 405/408, B ……………. Appellant Wing, Navbharat Estate Zakaria Bunder Road Sewree, Mumbai – 400 015 PAN No:AAGCA6159B v/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-8(2)(3),)(3), ……………. Respondent Mumbai M/s. Yuvak Ventures Pvt. Ltd., (as successors to Maestro Ventures Pvt. Ltd., earlier known as Aikone Marketing and Management Services Pvt. Ltd.,) ……………. Appellant Piramal Tower Annexe, Gan…

Tata Projects Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 329/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.329/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 बिाम/ Tata Projects Limited, Dcit Circle-2(3)(1) 2Nd,3Rd & 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan Transocean House, M K Road V. Lake Boulevard Road, Mumbai-400020 Hiranandani Gardens Mhada Colony Powai, Mumbai-400076 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaact4119L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. R.R. Vora & Shri. Vipual Soni Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 329/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 27.10.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-6/It-52/2016-17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2013-14, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 24.02.2016 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 2013-14. I.T.A. No.329/Mum/2018

For Appellant: Shri. R.R. Vora &For Respondent: Shri. D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253(3)

…ireet Investment Private Limited (2017) 165 ITD 27(Del. SB-trib.). It was I.T.A. No.329/Mum/2018 conceded by learned counsel for the assessee that in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited v. CIT reported in (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC), now even strategic investments in associated concerns/subsidiaries are also to be covered for making disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules for computing average investments held by the assessee. It was submitted that no independent satisfaction was recorded by the AO while invoking Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules as is mandated…

M/S. Rural Electrification Corporation Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed, whereas the appeal of the assessees partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5153/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.5153 & 6327/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Rural Electrification Vs. DCIT, Corporation Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, New Core-IV, Scope Complex, 7, Delhi Lodhi Road, New Delhi PAN :AAACR4512R (Appellant) (Respondent) And ITA Nos.5060 & 6335/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 DCIT, Vs. M/s. Rural Electrification LTU, New Delhi Corporation Ltd., Core-IV, Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi PAN :AAACR4512R (Appellant) (Respondent) As…