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 367,154 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

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Phillips Carbon Black Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2458/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

…ce is called for in this regard. The Ld. A.R has also placed reliance on the decision passed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Kesoram Industries Ltd. vs. PCIT and decision of Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment ltd. vs. CIT 402 ITR 640. The Ld. A.R has further submitted that the disallowance u/s 14A in terms of formula laid down in Rule 8D(2)(ii) should be computed only with reference to the cost of dividend yielding investment. The further submission of the Ld. AR with regard to the disallowance of weighted component of deduction u/s 35(2)(ab) of the Act is concerned that the…

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Kolkata vs. Phillips Carbon Black Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2457/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

…ce is called for in this regard. The Ld. A.R has also placed reliance on the decision passed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Kesoram Industries Ltd. vs. PCIT and decision of Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment ltd. vs. CIT 402 ITR 640. The Ld. A.R has further submitted that the disallowance u/s 14A in terms of formula laid down in Rule 8D(2)(ii) should be computed only with reference to the cost of dividend yielding investment. The further submission of the Ld. AR with regard to the disallowance of weighted component of deduction u/s 35(2)(ab) of the Act is concerned that the…

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Kolkata vs. Phillips Carbon Black Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2456/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

…ce is called for in this regard. The Ld. A.R has also placed reliance on the decision passed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Kesoram Industries Ltd. vs. PCIT and decision of Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment ltd. vs. CIT 402 ITR 640. The Ld. A.R has further submitted that the disallowance u/s 14A in terms of formula laid down in Rule 8D(2)(ii) should be computed only with reference to the cost of dividend yielding investment. The further submission of the Ld. AR with regard to the disallowance of weighted component of deduction u/s 35(2)(ab) of the Act is concerned that the…

Pcbl Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2034/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

…ce is called for in this regard. The Ld. A.R has also placed reliance on the decision passed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Kesoram Industries Ltd. vs. PCIT and decision of Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment ltd. vs. CIT 402 ITR 640. The Ld. A.R has further submitted that the disallowance u/s 14A in terms of formula laid down in Rule 8D(2)(ii) should be computed only with reference to the cost of dividend yielding investment. The further submission of the Ld. AR with regard to the disallowance of weighted component of deduction u/s 35(2)(ab) of the Act is concerned that the…

Prime Mineral Exports Private Limited (Now Amalgamated With Fomento Resources Private Limited), Panaji vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 1, Panaji

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

ITA 3/PAN/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 003/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prime Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Now Amalgamated With Fomento Resources Pvt. Ltd.) 102, 1St Fl. Kamat Metropolis-1, Behind Caculo Mall, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa-403001. . . . . . . .Appellant Pan : Aadcp1647E V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . Respondent Range-1, Panaji, Goa

For Appellant: Mr Nishant Thakkar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M. Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 41(1)Section 4I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 003/PAN/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prime Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Now Amalgamated with Fomento Resources Pvt. Ltd.) 102, 1st Fl. Kamat Metropolis-1, Behind Caculo Mall, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa-403001. . . . . . . .Appellant PAN : AADCP1647E V/s Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, . . . . . . . Respondent Range-1, Panaji, Goa Appearances Assessee by : Mr Nishant Thakkar [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr M. Satish [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing :…

Sicpa India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes to the above limited extent

ITA 1876/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1876/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2021-22 Sicpa India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 308-312, Mercantile House, 15, K. Central Circle-6, G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs6121L Assessee By: Sh. Akash Singhal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.06.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2021-22, Arises Against The Cit(A)-24, New Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2024-25/1072728002(1) Dated 30.01.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Akash Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…5. It is made clear that the learned lower authorities herein have made indirect administrative expenditure disallowance going by the specified formula which has been held as mandatory in nature; more particularly, in light of Maxopp Investment Vs CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). The assessee’s further contention that it had not incurred any expenditure has already been declined in the assessing authority corresponding detailed discussion in para 3.6 of the assessment order. I accordingly reject the assessee’s second instant substantive ground as well in very terms. 6. Learned counsel’s third vehement contention is…

Jindal Saw Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 504/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

…see sue moto made disallowance of INR 5,15,901/- while computing the total income. The disallowance so made represents expenses to administer and manage the investment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (New Delhi) [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) has held that “the disallowance u/s 14A should not be in excess of the income earned”. Further, the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT-IV [2015] 61 taxmann.com 118 (Delhi) held that “where no dividend income is earned, no disallowance be made”. In the present case, the assessee has dividend income of INR 12,939/- wherea…

DCIT Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jindal Saw Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4760/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

…see sue moto made disallowance of INR 5,15,901/- while computing the total income. The disallowance so made represents expenses to administer and manage the investment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (New Delhi) [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) has held that “the disallowance u/s 14A should not be in excess of the income earned”. Further, the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT-IV [2015] 61 taxmann.com 118 (Delhi) held that “where no dividend income is earned, no disallowance be made”. In the present case, the assessee has dividend income of INR 12,939/- wherea…

Jindal Saw Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4693/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

…see sue moto made disallowance of INR 5,15,901/- while computing the total income. The disallowance so made represents expenses to administer and manage the investment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (New Delhi) [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) has held that “the disallowance u/s 14A should not be in excess of the income earned”. Further, the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT-IV [2015] 61 taxmann.com 118 (Delhi) held that “where no dividend income is earned, no disallowance be made”. In the present case, the assessee has dividend income of INR 12,939/- wherea…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2021-22 is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 377/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.299 & 300/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Indian Overseas Bank, 763, Anna Salai, Tax, Chennai-600 002. Non-Corporate Circle - 8, Chennai. Pan : Aaaci-1223-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.354 & 377/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Indian Overseas Bank, Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Non-Corporate Circle - 8, Chennai-600 002. Chennai. Pan : Aaaci-1223-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. C.Naresh, C.A
Section 143(2)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43BSection 90

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘डी’"ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र ,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस आर रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"के सम" . . BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.299 & 300/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Indian Overseas Bank, 763, Anna Salai, Tax, Chennai-600 002. Non-Corporate Circle - 8, Chennai. PAN : AAACI-1223-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.354 & 377/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21…

DCIT Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2021-22 is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 354/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.299 & 300/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Indian Overseas Bank, 763, Anna Salai, Tax, Chennai-600 002. Non-Corporate Circle - 8, Chennai. Pan : Aaaci-1223-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.354 & 377/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Indian Overseas Bank, Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Non-Corporate Circle - 8, Chennai-600 002. Chennai. Pan : Aaaci-1223-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. C.Naresh, C.A
Section 143(2)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43BSection 90

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘डी’"ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र ,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस आर रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"के सम" . . BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.299 & 300/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Indian Overseas Bank, 763, Anna Salai, Tax, Chennai-600 002. Non-Corporate Circle - 8, Chennai. PAN : AAACI-1223-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.354 & 377/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT(A), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2021-22 is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 300/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.299 & 300/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Indian Overseas Bank, 763, Anna Salai, Tax, Chennai-600 002. Non-Corporate Circle - 8, Chennai. Pan : Aaaci-1223-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.354 & 377/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Indian Overseas Bank, Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Non-Corporate Circle - 8, Chennai-600 002. Chennai. Pan : Aaaci-1223-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. C.Naresh, C.A
Section 143(2)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43BSection 90

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘डी’"ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र ,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस आर रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"के सम" . . BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.299 & 300/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Indian Overseas Bank, 763, Anna Salai, Tax, Chennai-600 002. Non-Corporate Circle - 8, Chennai. PAN : AAACI-1223-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.354 & 377/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT(A), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2021-22 is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 299/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.299 & 300/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Indian Overseas Bank, 763, Anna Salai, Tax, Chennai-600 002. Non-Corporate Circle - 8, Chennai. Pan : Aaaci-1223-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.354 & 377/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Indian Overseas Bank, Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Non-Corporate Circle - 8, Chennai-600 002. Chennai. Pan : Aaaci-1223-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. C.Naresh, C.A
Section 143(2)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43BSection 90

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘डी’"ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र ,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस आर रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"के सम" . . BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.299 & 300/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Indian Overseas Bank, 763, Anna Salai, Tax, Chennai-600 002. Non-Corporate Circle - 8, Chennai. PAN : AAACI-1223-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.354 & 377/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21…

ACIT Circle 3, Lucknow vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 141/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 112 To 114/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 To 2017-18 Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Vs. Dcit Bank Ltd P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226001. Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan:Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) A.Y.2016-17 Acit Circle-3 Vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh Ltd Kar Bhawan, Lucknow Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan: Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Four Appeals Have Been Have Been Filed For The Assessment Years 2015 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 By The Assessee & Revenue Ssessee & Revenue Against The Respective Orders Of The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024. While The Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, The Revenue 18, The Revenue

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 36(1)(v)

…t apportioned its indirect expenses incurred to earn taxable and non taxable income. Therefore, the relying upon the CBDT Circular No.05/2014 dated 11.02.2014 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT, New Delhi 402 ITR 640, the Ld. AO held that ITA. No.141/LKW/2024 as per Rule 8D, the amount of expenditure to be disallowed came to Rs.61,78,920/-, which was less than the total finance cost. Hence, he disallowed the same. While making the disallowance of “NACH Expenses”, the Ld. AO pointed out that the assessee had been asked to justify the expense vis-à-vis ledger a…

Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT, Lucknow

ITA 114/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B

…pportioned its indirect expenses incurred to earn taxable and non taxable income. Therefore, the relying upon the CBDT Circular 16 No.05/2014 dated 11.02.2014 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT, New Delhi 402 ITR 640, the Ld. AO held that as per Rule 8D, the amount of expenditure to be disallowed came to Rs.61,78,920/-, which was less than the total finance cost. Hence, he disallowed the same. While making the disallowance of “NACH Expenses”, the Ld. AO pointed out that the assessee had been asked to justify the expense vis-à-vis ledger account and vouchers a…

Isl Consulting Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1) ( Previously DCIT, Cen. Circ. 1(3), Chennai), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 218/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia & Shri Samir VoraFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…warrant any disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the Act. 17. Ld. DR, however, pointed out that this plea of the assessee had been dealt with by the Ld. CIT(A), considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited [2018] 91 Taxmann.com 154, wherein it was categorically held that even investment held as stock-in-trade were to be considered for the purposes of disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the Act. He drew our attention to para 6.6 & 6.7 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as under: “6.6 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has stated that disallowance u/s 14A is…

Warden International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 8(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1754/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal / Atul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 154Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM I.T.A. No. 1754/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Warden International Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, Circle-8(3)(2), Warden House, 340, J.J. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Byculla, Mumbai-400008. Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACW0749H Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Shri Sukhsagar Syal / Atul Suraiya & Ms.Bhavika Jain, AR Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR : 30.04.2025 Date of Hearing : 16.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the asse…

Atul Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 38/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

…,616/- 15. The DR further contended that the DRP has rightly upheld the disallowance under section 14A, and the consequential adjustment under section 115JB, following the binding judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [(2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC)], wherein it was held that section 14A applies even to strategic investments if they yield exempt income. It was also submitted that the Rule 8D mechanism is mandatory where the AO, after due consideration, is not satisfied with the assessee’s working, as is the case here. Therefore, the disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D…

Addi. CIT Spl. Range-9, New Delhi vs. The Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 7597/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 14Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…had been received by the assessee from strategic investments and the same need to be eliminated is misconceived in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp 6 The Hindustan Times Ltd [A.Y 2015-16] Investment Ltd vs CIT reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC). To this extent, the argument advanced by the ld.AR is dismissed. 6.5. We further find lot of force in the alternative argument advanced by the ld. AR that only those investments which had yielded exempt income is to be considered while working out the computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. This view of ours is further f…

Nuvama Wealth Management Limited, Bandra East, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Cgo Building, Mumbai

ITA 480/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 1Section 115JSection 14A

…er is not satisfied on an objective criteria in the context of its accounts, that suo motu disallowance claimed by the assessee is not proper. 12. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 154/254 Taxman 325/402 ITR 640 while upholding the view of the Delhi High Court has held that the Assessing Officer needs to record his non-satisfaction having regard to the sou motu disallowances claimed by the assessee in the context of its accounts. It is only thereafter, the occasion to apply rule 8D of the Rules for apportionment of expenses can arise. 13. In the present…