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

Juniper Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT WD 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4273/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Juniper Hotels P. Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Off Western Express Of Income Tax-10(1) Vs. Highway, Santacruz (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400055. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaecs6336E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil Bhandari, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/04/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Bhandari, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia, DR
Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Juniper Hotels P. Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Off Western Express of Income Tax-10(1) Vs. Highway, Santacruz (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400055. Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAECS6336E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Sunil Bhandari, AR Revenue by : Ms. Arju Garodia, DR Date of Hearing : 12/03/2018 Date of pronouncement : 18/04/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year i…

Zee Media Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. Addll.CIT -RG.7(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2695/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 133(6)Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.2166/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2011-12) Asst. Commissioner of Income –tax v. M/s. Zee Media Corporation Ltd. – 8(3)(2) {formerly known as Zee News Ltd.,} Room No. 615, 6th floor, Continental Building, 135, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai – 18 Mumbai-400 020 PAN No: AAACZ 1213 B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.NO.2695/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2011-12) M/s. Zee Media Corporation Ltd. Addl. Commissioner of Income –tax – v. {formerly known as Zee News Ltd.,} R…

ACIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Zee Media Corporation Ltd. (Formerly Known As Zee News Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2166/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 133(6)Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.2166/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2011-12) Asst. Commissioner of Income –tax v. M/s. Zee Media Corporation Ltd. – 8(3)(2) {formerly known as Zee News Ltd.,} Room No. 615, 6th floor, Continental Building, 135, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai – 18 Mumbai-400 020 PAN No: AAACZ 1213 B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.NO.2695/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2011-12) M/s. Zee Media Corporation Ltd. Addl. Commissioner of Income –tax – v. {formerly known as Zee News Ltd.,} R…

Ansh Merchandise P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 6458/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6458/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Ansh Merchandise Private Dcit 5(2) Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 211, Balaji Arcade Mumbai-400020 V. Near Sejal Glass, S.V. Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400067 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn8176E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri. R.P Meena ,CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6458/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Ansh Merchandise Private DCIT 5(2) Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 211, Balaji Arcade Mumbai-400020 v. Near Sejal Glass, S.V. Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400067 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AABCN8176E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri. Rahul Hakani Revenue by : Shri. R.P Meena ,CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख /…

A W Industries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the ground of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1988/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.N.Bhat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1985, 1986, 1987 & 1988/Bang/2017 (Assessment years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/s. A.W.Industries Pvt. Ltd. No.47/1, Mothinagar, G.C.Street, Bengaluru-560002. … Appellant PAN: AACCA3955D Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri G.N.Bhat, Advocate. Respondent by : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 04/04/2018 Date of pronouncement : 13/04/2018 O R D E R Per BENCH: Th…

A.W.Industries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the ground of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1987/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.N.Bhat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1985, 1986, 1987 & 1988/Bang/2017 (Assessment years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/s. A.W.Industries Pvt. Ltd. No.47/1, Mothinagar, G.C.Street, Bengaluru-560002. … Appellant PAN: AACCA3955D Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri G.N.Bhat, Advocate. Respondent by : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 04/04/2018 Date of pronouncement : 13/04/2018 O R D E R Per BENCH: Th…

A W Industries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the ground of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1986/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.N.Bhat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1985, 1986, 1987 & 1988/Bang/2017 (Assessment years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/s. A.W.Industries Pvt. Ltd. No.47/1, Mothinagar, G.C.Street, Bengaluru-560002. … Appellant PAN: AACCA3955D Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri G.N.Bhat, Advocate. Respondent by : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 04/04/2018 Date of pronouncement : 13/04/2018 O R D E R Per BENCH: Th…

A.W.Industries Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the ground of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1985/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.N.Bhat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1985, 1986, 1987 & 1988/Bang/2017 (Assessment years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/s. A.W.Industries Pvt. Ltd. No.47/1, Mothinagar, G.C.Street, Bengaluru-560002. … Appellant PAN: AACCA3955D Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri G.N.Bhat, Advocate. Respondent by : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 04/04/2018 Date of pronouncement : 13/04/2018 O R D E R Per BENCH: Th…

Kpit Technologies Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 594/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.594/Pn/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Kpit Technologies Limited, (Earlier Known As Kpit Cummins Infosystems Ltd.) Plot No.35/36, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Phase I, Midc, Hinjewadi Phase 1 Rd, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aaack7308N Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle -14, Pune

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “ऐ” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.594/PN/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 KPIT Technologies Limited, (earlier known as KPIT Cummins Infosystems Ltd.) Plot No.35/36, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Phase I, MIDC, Hinjewadi Phase 1 Rd, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411057 …. PAN: AAACK7308N Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle -14, Pune अऩीऱाथी की ओ…

M/S Maruti Traders & Investors, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-35, Kolkata

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

ITA 2204/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 2204/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Maruti Traders & Investors -Vs- Acit, Circle-35, Kolkata [Pan: Aaqfm 9294 C ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Verma, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…lant craves leave to add, alter or modify any other grounds of appeal at the hearing stage. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [2018] 91 Taxmann 154 (S C) dated 12.02.2018 had held that the provision of section 14A would be applicable even when the shares are held as stock-in-trade in view of the fact that the resultant dividend income earned would be exempt in any case. Hence, we hold that the applicability of provision of section 14A in respect of shares held as stock-in-trade has been s…

Russell Credit Limited, Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T (OSD), Cir - 8, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of revenue as well as assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 674/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 14ASection 46Section 48Section 49Section 49(1)Section 92CSection 92E

…Russell Credit Ltd., AY- 2009-10 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")Before "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/and "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 629/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. Russell Credit Limited Circle-8, Kolkata. (PAN: AABCR3494H) Appellant Respondent & I.T.A. No. 674/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Russell Credit Limited Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (PAN: AABCR3494H) (OSD), Circle-8, Kolkata. Appellan…

D.C.I.T Cir - 8, Kolkata. vs. M/S Russel Credit Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of revenue as well as assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 629/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 14ASection 46Section 48Section 49Section 49(1)Section 92CSection 92E

…Russell Credit Ltd., AY- 2009-10 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")Before "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/and "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 629/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. Russell Credit Limited Circle-8, Kolkata. (PAN: AABCR3494H) Appellant Respondent & I.T.A. No. 674/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Russell Credit Limited Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (PAN: AABCR3494H) (OSD), Circle-8, Kolkata. Appellan…

M/S. Maa Group Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2584/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2011-12

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Subramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 14ASection 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year :2011-12 M/s. Maa Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd., No. 6, MAA House, The Income Tax Officer, Service Road, Domlur, Vs. Ward – 4 (1) (3), Bangalore – 560 071. Bangalore. PAN: AAACC6039N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri R.E. Subramanian, CA Respondent by : Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 02.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 06.04.2018 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee which is dire…

Icici Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 4269/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Icici Securities Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Income Tax Range Vs. Marg, Churchgate, 4(1), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 ICICI Securities Ltd. Dy. Commissioner of ICICI Centre, H.T. Parekh Income Tax Range Vs. Marg, Churchgate, 4(1), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai. PAN No. AAACI0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, AR Revenue by : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR Date of Hearing : 02/02/2018 Date of pronouncement: 19/03/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orde…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Archway Investments Co. P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7215/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं././././Ita Nos.8461/M/2010 & 5598/M/2011 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Archway Investment Ito-2(1)(1), Company Limited, Mumbai Neville House, बनाम/Vs. J.N. Heredia Marg, बनाम बनाम बनाम Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aaaca5507H (अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'यथ% &'यथ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ% &'यथ% &'यथ% आयकर अपील सं././././Ita Nos.948/M/2011, 7215/M/2012 & 6013/M/2011 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2007-08 & 2008-09) (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Ito-2(1)(1), Archway Investment Co. Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd., R.No.561, 5Th Floor, Neville House, बनाम/Vs. M.K. Road, J.N. Heredia Marg, बनाम बनाम बनाम Mumbai-400 020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aaaca5507H (अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'य थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ% &'य &'यथ% &'य थ% थ% Present For: Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R
Section 14A

…not satisfied with the explanation/working given by the assessee, disallowance under section 14A has to be made on a reasonable basis. Almost similar view has been expressed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 'Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Others' vs. CIT (247 ITR 162). 6. It may be further observed that it is not a case where no exempt income was received by the assessee despite making investments for earning exempt income. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the exempt income earned by the assessee was very less or not in proportion to the investments made by the assessee for this purpose. Under suc…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Archway Investment Co. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 948/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं././././Ita Nos.8461/M/2010 & 5598/M/2011 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Archway Investment Ito-2(1)(1), Company Limited, Mumbai Neville House, बनाम/Vs. J.N. Heredia Marg, बनाम बनाम बनाम Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aaaca5507H (अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'यथ% &'यथ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ% &'यथ% &'यथ% आयकर अपील सं././././Ita Nos.948/M/2011, 7215/M/2012 & 6013/M/2011 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2007-08 & 2008-09) (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Ito-2(1)(1), Archway Investment Co. Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd., R.No.561, 5Th Floor, Neville House, बनाम/Vs. M.K. Road, J.N. Heredia Marg, बनाम बनाम बनाम Mumbai-400 020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aaaca5507H (अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'य थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ% &'य &'यथ% &'य थ% थ% Present For: Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R
Section 14A

…not satisfied with the explanation/working given by the assessee, disallowance under section 14A has to be made on a reasonable basis. Almost similar view has been expressed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 'Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Others' vs. CIT (247 ITR 162). 6. It may be further observed that it is not a case where no exempt income was received by the assessee despite making investments for earning exempt income. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the exempt income earned by the assessee was very less or not in proportion to the investments made by the assessee for this purpose. Under suc…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Archway Investment Co. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6013/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं././././Ita Nos.8461/M/2010 & 5598/M/2011 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Archway Investment Ito-2(1)(1), Company Limited, Mumbai Neville House, बनाम/Vs. J.N. Heredia Marg, बनाम बनाम बनाम Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aaaca5507H (अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'यथ% &'यथ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ% &'यथ% &'यथ% आयकर अपील सं././././Ita Nos.948/M/2011, 7215/M/2012 & 6013/M/2011 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2007-08 & 2008-09) (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Ito-2(1)(1), Archway Investment Co. Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd., R.No.561, 5Th Floor, Neville House, बनाम/Vs. M.K. Road, J.N. Heredia Marg, बनाम बनाम बनाम Mumbai-400 020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aaaca5507H (अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'य थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ% &'य &'यथ% &'य थ% थ% Present For: Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R
Section 14A

…not satisfied with the explanation/working given by the assessee, disallowance under section 14A has to be made on a reasonable basis. Almost similar view has been expressed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 'Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Others' vs. CIT (247 ITR 162). 6. It may be further observed that it is not a case where no exempt income was received by the assessee despite making investments for earning exempt income. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the exempt income earned by the assessee was very less or not in proportion to the investments made by the assessee for this purpose. Under suc…

Archway Investment Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(1`), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5598/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं././././Ita Nos.8461/M/2010 & 5598/M/2011 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Archway Investment Ito-2(1)(1), Company Limited, Mumbai Neville House, बनाम/Vs. J.N. Heredia Marg, बनाम बनाम बनाम Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aaaca5507H (अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'यथ% &'यथ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ% &'यथ% &'यथ% आयकर अपील सं././././Ita Nos.948/M/2011, 7215/M/2012 & 6013/M/2011 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2007-08 & 2008-09) (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Ito-2(1)(1), Archway Investment Co. Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd., R.No.561, 5Th Floor, Neville House, बनाम/Vs. M.K. Road, J.N. Heredia Marg, बनाम बनाम बनाम Mumbai-400 020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aaaca5507H (अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'य थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ% &'य &'यथ% &'य थ% थ% Present For: Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R
Section 14A

…not satisfied with the explanation/working given by the assessee, disallowance under section 14A has to be made on a reasonable basis. Almost similar view has been expressed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 'Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Others' vs. CIT (247 ITR 162). 6. It may be further observed that it is not a case where no exempt income was received by the assessee despite making investments for earning exempt income. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the exempt income earned by the assessee was very less or not in proportion to the investments made by the assessee for this purpose. Under suc…

Archway Investment Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8461/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं././././Ita Nos.8461/M/2010 & 5598/M/2011 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Archway Investment Ito-2(1)(1), Company Limited, Mumbai Neville House, बनाम/Vs. J.N. Heredia Marg, बनाम बनाम बनाम Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aaaca5507H (अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'यथ% &'यथ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ% &'यथ% &'यथ% आयकर अपील सं././././Ita Nos.948/M/2011, 7215/M/2012 & 6013/M/2011 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2007-08 & 2008-09) (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Ito-2(1)(1), Archway Investment Co. Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd., R.No.561, 5Th Floor, Neville House, बनाम/Vs. M.K. Road, J.N. Heredia Marg, बनाम बनाम बनाम Mumbai-400 020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aaaca5507H (अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'य थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ% &'य &'यथ% &'य थ% थ% Present For: Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R
Section 14A

…not satisfied with the explanation/working given by the assessee, disallowance under section 14A has to be made on a reasonable basis. Almost similar view has been expressed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 'Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Others' vs. CIT (247 ITR 162). 6. It may be further observed that it is not a case where no exempt income was received by the assessee despite making investments for earning exempt income. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the exempt income earned by the assessee was very less or not in proportion to the investments made by the assessee for this purpose. Under suc…

M/S. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 4894/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 36

…not satisfied with the explanation/working given by the assessee, disallowance under section 14A has to be made on a reasonable basis. Almost similar view has been expressed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 'Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Others' vs. CIT (247 ITR 162). Hence, the rule 8 D of the Income Tax Rules is not applicable for the Assessment year under consideration. Disallowance under section 14 A, thus, can be made on some reasonable basis for the year under consideration and not under rule 8 D as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ‘Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd’. (supra). 2…