Minda Investments Ltd. v. DCIT

65 SOT 187Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2014#18239 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing Minda Investments Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6302/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…IT: 402 ITR 640 (SC) - DLF Ltd. vs. CIT: 27 SOT 22 (Del. ITAT) – Affirmed by Delhi High Court (350 ITR 555) - Impulse (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT: 22 SOT 368 (Del. ITAT) - Minda Investments Ltd. vs. DCIT: 48 SOT 169 (Del. ITAT) - PukhrajChunilalBafna vs. DCIT: 65 SOT 187 (Mum. ITAT) - DCIT vs. Smita Conductors Ltd.: 16 SOT 251 (Mum. ITAT) - DCIT vs. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd: 152 TTJ 522 (Amr. ITAT) - CIT v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.:237 CTR 164/207 Taxman 2 (Kar.) 3.0.6 The Ld. AR submitted that in the present case, no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income. The expenses debited in the profit and loss a…

M/S. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6282/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

ACIT 3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. EDELWEISS TRADING & HOLDINGS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4259/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4259/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-3(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Edelweiss Trading & Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Holding Ltd. (Formerly Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Edelweiss Commodities 400020 Ltd.) 1, Edelweiss House, Off, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E) Mumbai- 400098 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce3819M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rajan Vora सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.10.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17. 01.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 16.03.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 8, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit{A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.12,74,59,362/- Made By Assessing Officer On Account Of Mark To Market Loss A.Y.2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…not accepted. It was held that disallowance u/s 14A requires a finding of incurring of expenditure. If it is found that for earning exempted income no expenditure has been incurred, disallowance u/s 14A cannot stand. • Pukhraj Chunilal Bafna v. Dy. CIT [2014] 65 SOT 187/47 taxmann.com 288 (Mum. -Trib.) it was held that the Assessing Officer to trigger rule 8D had not to be satisfied with the correctness of claim of the assessee as regards expenditure in relation to exempt income. Hence, without examining the nature of expenditure disallowed by the assessee or correctness of allowance/disallowance, the Assessing O…

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5629/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Shapoorji Pallonji Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Infrastructure Capital बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Company Ltd. Vs. M.K. Road, 41/44, S.P. Centre, Mumbai-400020 Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400005 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aabcs4370B

Section 115JSection 14A

…s are of Rs.316.79 crores, which were more than the investment of Rs.130.08 crores. In the light of the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.), Pukhraj Chunnilal Bafna vs DCIT (2014) 65 SOT 187. Own case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2009- 10, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), resultantly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of the ld. DR at the conclusion o…

ACIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MUKUND GLOBAL FINANCE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 809/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Acit – 3 (2) (1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Mukund Global 3Rd Finance Ltd., Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm8384N Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Reserve & surplus is Rs. 39.32 crores which are way above the investments of Rs. 19.84 crores. 5.2.5 In deciding the issue in the instant case, I place reliance on the following decisions of jurisdictional courts: • In Pukhraj Chunilal Bafnav. Dy. CIT [2014] 65 SOT 187/47 taxmann.com 288 (Mum. - Trib.) it was held that the Assessing Officer to trigger rule 80 had not to be satisfied with the correctness of claim of the assessee as regards expenditure in relation to exempt income. Hence, without examining the nature of expenditure disallowed by the assessee or correctness of allowance/disallowance, the Assessing…