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 366,470 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

Mr. Rajesh Damani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 35(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 262/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtapsh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DR
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before : Shri P.M. Jagtapsh, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member ITA No. 262/Kol/2017 A.Y 2013-14 Mr. Rajesh Damani Vs. Income-tax Officer PAN:AEAPD3236M Ward 35(4), Kolkata [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant/ Assessee by : Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA, Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate, ld. ARs Respondent/ Department by : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DR Date of Hearing : 08-05-2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04-07-2018 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: The above appeal by the Assessee is against the order dt. 17- 11…

DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Industrial Investment Bank of India, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1871/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1870, 1871 & 894/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Industrial Investment Bank Of India [Pan: Aabci 0324 D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Md. Usman, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

…visions of section 14A of the Act cannot be invoked on the assessee. 5.2. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. 5.3. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC) had held that provisions of section 14A of the Act are applicable even for investments held as stock in trade. Hence this issue is now settled and provisions of section 14A of the Act are to be applied in the instant case. We find that this tribunal in the case of REI Agro Ltd reported in 144 ITD 141 (Kol Trib) had held that only those inves…

DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Industrial Investment Bank of India, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1870/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1870, 1871 & 894/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Industrial Investment Bank Of India [Pan: Aabci 0324 D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Md. Usman, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

…visions of section 14A of the Act cannot be invoked on the assessee. 5.2. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. 5.3. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC) had held that provisions of section 14A of the Act are applicable even for investments held as stock in trade. Hence this issue is now settled and provisions of section 14A of the Act are to be applied in the instant case. We find that this tribunal in the case of REI Agro Ltd reported in 144 ITD 141 (Kol Trib) had held that only those inves…

Bhisma Realty Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 6447/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM I.T.A. Nos.6447/M/2014 & 5411/M/2015 (Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/s. Bhishma Realty Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of I-Tax, Vithaldas Chambers, 3 rd Cir 2(1) Room No.542, 5th Floor 16, Mumbai Samachar Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg fort, Mumbai-400001 Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACB5995N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K. Gopal Department by: Shri Suman Kumar (DR) Date of Hearing: 05.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 29.06.2018 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH…

Allied Digital Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3, Mumbai

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

ITA 3569/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Allied Digital Services Ltd. Dcit, Cc- 3, 13A, 13Th Floor, Earnest House, Mumbai. Ncpa, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaaca5509K Appellant Respondent M/S Allied Digital Services Ltd. Dcit, Cc- 3, 13A, 13Th Floor, Earnest House, Mumbai. Ncpa, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaaca5509K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rakesh Joshi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri R.P. Meena (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.06.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income –Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 253Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Allied Digital Services Ltd. DCIT, CC- 3, 13A, 13th Floor, Earnest House, Mumbai. NCPA, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACA5509K Appellant Respondent M/s Allied Digital Services Ltd. DCIT, CC- 3, 13A, 13th Floor, Earnest House, Mumbai. NCPA, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACA5509K Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Rakesh Joshi (AR) Respondent by : Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing : 03.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 29.06.2018 Order Under…

M/S. Suryamani Financing Company Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 7(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 62/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 62/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Suryamani Financing Company Ltd. –Vs- Ito, Ward-7(3), Kolkata [Pan: Aadcs 5559 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…o the file of the ld. AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law by taking into account all the contentions of the assessee and also applying the propositions of law laid down to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT in 402 ITR 640 (SC), at para 31 and 32 held as follows: 31. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the argument of counsel for the parties on both sides, in the light of various judgments which have been cited before us, some of which have already been taken note of above. 32) In the first instance, it needs to be recognised that as per section 14A(1) of…

Vulvan Traders P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5657/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Vulvan Traders Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(3)(3) 805, A Wing, Corporate Avenue, Room No. 227, Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Road, Goregaon (E) M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 063

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChaturvediFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 14A

…ee submitted that, assessee contended that the stock in trade cannot be considered for disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. He submitted that now this issue is decided against the assessee by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [402 ITR 640]. Thus this ground is dismissed. 4. Coming to Ground No.3 which it is the contention of the assessee that investments on which no tax free income was earned during the year under consideration cannot be considered for calculating the disallowance u/s. 14A and this issue is now decided by the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACI…

M/S. Federal Mogul Goetze India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3324/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 14ASection 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench D Before : Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA No. 3324/ Del./ 2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), Federal Mogul Goetze India Ltd., (formerly Goetze India Ltd.), New Delhi. G-4, JR complex, Gate No. 4, (Respondent) Mandoli, New Delhi. PAN- AAACG3769M (Appellant) Assessee by Sh. R.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue by Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 28.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement 27.06.2018 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-III, New Delhi da…

Manoj Vasudev Wadhwa, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 358/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Manoj Vasudev Wadhwa A C I T - 19(3) 11 Happy Home Piramal Chamber Vs. 244, Waterfield Road Lower Parel Bandra (W), Mumbai 400050 Mumbai 400007 Pan – Aalpw0303K Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3 Shri Manoj Vasudev Wadhwa Room No. 227, 2Nd Floor 11 Happy Home Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 244, Waterfield Road Mumbai 400020 Bandra (W), Mumbai 400050 Pan – Aalpw0303K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 14A

…d as stock in trade and accordingly it was submitted that the receipt of dividend income was incidental. We notice that the assessee has held certain shares as its investments also. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd (402 ITR 640) that the exemption claimed on dividend income would trigger the provisions of sec. 14A of the Act. It was also held that the objective to have controlling interest in making investments is also not relevant for computing disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. We notice that the assessee has taken certain grounds relating to strategic investments and s…

Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Manoj Vasudev Wadhwa, Mumbai

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

ITA 325/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Manoj Vasudev Wadhwa A C I T - 19(3) 11 Happy Home Piramal Chamber Vs. 244, Waterfield Road Lower Parel Bandra (W), Mumbai 400050 Mumbai 400007 Pan – Aalpw0303K Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3 Shri Manoj Vasudev Wadhwa Room No. 227, 2Nd Floor 11 Happy Home Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 244, Waterfield Road Mumbai 400020 Bandra (W), Mumbai 400050 Pan – Aalpw0303K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 14A

…d as stock in trade and accordingly it was submitted that the receipt of dividend income was incidental. We notice that the assessee has held certain shares as its investments also. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd (402 ITR 640) that the exemption claimed on dividend income would trigger the provisions of sec. 14A of the Act. It was also held that the objective to have controlling interest in making investments is also not relevant for computing disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. We notice that the assessee has taken certain grounds relating to strategic investments and s…

Kabra Extrusiontechnik Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4120/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Kabra Extrusion Technik Ltd V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 31, Shah Industrial Estate, Tax (Osd) – 8(2) Veera Desai Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 14ASection 32(1)

…he absence of recording of any satisfaction on the suo moto disallowance made by assessee no disallowance is required to be made u/s. 14A of the Act. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [402 ITR 640]. Learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that for the Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA.No. 4078/Mum/2012 dated 15.12.2017 in assessee’s own case the Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee holding that no disallowance is required to be made as there was no satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR…

Anirudh Garg, Ludhiana vs. Asstt. Commisssioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessees

ITA 564/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms.Annapurna Guptajatinder Garg, Vs. The A.C.I.T., 172-C, B.R.S. Nagar, Circel 6, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Adfpg2621P Anirudh Garg, Vs. The A.C.I.T., 125-A, Raj Guru Nagar, Circel 6, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Ahypg956A & Anirudh Garg, Vs. The J.C.I.T., 125-A, Raj Guru Nagar, Range-Vi, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Ahypg956A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.J.Shelly, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Addl.CIT
Section 14Section 14ASection 250(6)

…n upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide decision reported in reported in (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 111 (SC) in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Vs. DCIT. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxo Opp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 91 Taxmann.com 154 (SC) has reaffirmed the above proposition in the following words: “41. Having regard to the language of Section 14A(2) of the Act, read with Rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowanc…

Jatinder Garg, Ludhiana vs. Asstt. Commisssioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessees

ITA 561/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms.Annapurna Guptajatinder Garg, Vs. The A.C.I.T., 172-C, B.R.S. Nagar, Circel 6, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Adfpg2621P Anirudh Garg, Vs. The A.C.I.T., 125-A, Raj Guru Nagar, Circel 6, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Ahypg956A & Anirudh Garg, Vs. The J.C.I.T., 125-A, Raj Guru Nagar, Range-Vi, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Ahypg956A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.J.Shelly, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Addl.CIT
Section 14Section 14ASection 250(6)

…n upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide decision reported in reported in (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 111 (SC) in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Vs. DCIT. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxo Opp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 91 Taxmann.com 154 (SC) has reaffirmed the above proposition in the following words: “41. Having regard to the language of Section 14A(2) of the Act, read with Rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowanc…

Capricon Realty Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3660/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Capricon Realty Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Vithaldas Chambers, 3Rd Floor, Tax, Circle – 2(1)(1) 16, Mumbai Samachar Marg, Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan No: Aaacc 4297 J

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Capricon Realty Ltd., v. Asst. Commissioner of Income- Vithaldas Chambers, 3rd Floor, tax, Circle – 2(1)(1) 16, Mumbai Samachar Marg, Room No. 561, 5th Floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 PAN NO: AAACC 4297 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K. Gopal Department by : Shri V. Vidhyadhar Date of Hearing : 05.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2018 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD: 1. This appeal is filed by th…

Wadhwa Residency P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 9(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5413/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 43B

…he AO having regard to the accounts of the assessee. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) was completely erred in confirming addition made by the AO. The Ld.AR further referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd vs CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically observed at para 41 of the order that before applying the rule, AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the account of the assessee, suo moto disallowance u/s 14A was not correct. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-11, New Delhi

In the result ground No

ITA 6990/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…in the result ground No. 22 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” It is observed in the present case that the assessee has suo moto disallowed expenses under Section 14A of the Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) held that “40) We note from the facts in the State Bank of Patiala cases that the AO, while passing the assessment order, had already restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in Rule 8D of the Rules and holding that section 14A of the Act would be applicable. In spite of t…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…in the result ground No. 22 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” It is observed in the present case that the assessee has suo moto disallowed expenses under Section 14A of the Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) held that “40) We note from the facts in the State Bank of Patiala cases that the AO, while passing the assessment order, had already restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in Rule 8D of the Rules and holding that section 14A of the Act 85 would be applicable. In spite…

Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1249/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1248 & 1249/Del/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Punjab & Sind Bank, Vs. DCIT, HO. Accounts & Audit Circle-14(1), New Delhi Department, First Floor, 21, Rajinder Place, New Delhi PAN :AAACP1206G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Vivek Gupta, CA Department by Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 22.05.2018 Date of pronouncement 12.06.2018 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, b…

Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1248/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1248 & 1249/Del/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Punjab & Sind Bank, Vs. DCIT, HO. Accounts & Audit Circle-14(1), New Delhi Department, First Floor, 21, Rajinder Place, New Delhi PAN :AAACP1206G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Vivek Gupta, CA Department by Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 22.05.2018 Date of pronouncement 12.06.2018 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, b…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ge Capital Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 762/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Suchit Jolly, Adv
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.761 & 762/DEL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 DCIT, Circle-10(1), v. M/s. GE Capital Services New Delhi. India Pvt. Ltd., AIFACS Building 1, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACG 0239L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR Respondent by: Shri Suchit Jolly, Adv. Date of hearing: 15 03 2018 Date of pronouncement: 11 06 2018 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the…