PCIT v. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

414 ITR 122High Court2019#1635 most cited

What is PCIT v. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned, and only investments that have yielded or are capable of yielding exempt income are considered for Rule 8D computation. The Assessing Officer must record objective satisfaction before rejecting the assessee's disallowance and applying Rule 8D, a principle also applicable to Section 115JB.

69

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Caraf Builders · 414 ITR 122 · Section 14A disallowance · Rule 8D · objective satisfaction · exempt income limit · investments not yielding exempt income · Section 115JB · book profit · Minimum Alternate Tax

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 14ASection 1962Section 143(3)Section 8DSection 115JBSection 250Section 37(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 14a(3)section 36(i)(iii)section 36(i)(va)section 36(l)(iii)section 36(l)(va)section 36(l)section 14a(1)r&d expenditurestatutory duessection 270a(9)mat creditsection 14a(2)

Judgments citing PCIT v. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Hero Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee

ITA 3607/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Bansal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Jeetandra Kr. Kale, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is to the extent of Rs. 1.78 crores (rounded of) which is much in excess of the exempt income earned. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Caraf Builders & Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 122 (Del) has held that disallowance u/s. 14A cannot exceed exempt income of the relevant year. This position has also 7 ITA.Nos.3608 & 3607/Del./2018 M/s. Hero Corporate Service Pvt. Ltd. been upheld by various High Courts including Hon’ble Delhi High Court in various decisions. In view of the settled position of law that the disallowance u/s. 14A c…

Jalco Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 13(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4447/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Parveen Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D can never exceed exempt income earned by the assessee during particular assessment year. A reference can be made to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs Caraf Builders & Construction (P) Ltd (2019) 414 ITR 122 (Del) and the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Envestor Venture Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 123 Taxmann.com 378 (Mad). We therefore following the aforesaid decisions of Hon’ble High Court direct the AO to delete the disallowance in excess of the suo moto amount of Rs. 65,932/- disallowed by the assessee. Thus the ground of the a…

DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Rswm Ltd, Kharigram

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1927/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 14Section 14ASection 153A

…A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income which is supported from decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Private Limited vs. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Del) and Pr.CIT v. Caraf Builders 8b Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2019] 414 ITR 122 (Delhi) [SLP dismissed by SC]. 8.3 In view of finding recorded in aforesaid para, I hereby direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the extent of dividend income of Rs.50,17,110/- and delete remaining disallowance. The Ground No.1 is thus partly allowed.” 6. We have carefully considered the objection raised on behalf of the Re…

DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Rswm Ltd, Kharigram

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1926/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 153A

…4A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income which is supported from decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Private Limited vs. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Del) and Pr.CIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2019] 414 ITR 122 (Delhi) [SLP dismissed by SC] 8.3 In view of finding recorded in aforesaid para, I hereby direct the assessing officer to restrict the disallowance to the extent of dividend income of Rs. 1,48,52,682/- and delete the remaining disallowance. The Ground No. 1 is thus partly allowed.” 6. We have carefully considered the objections raised on behalf…

ACIT, Circle- 17, New Delhi vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1203/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 32

…t Years. The undisputed fact is that during the captioned Assessment Years, the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Caraf Builders & Constructions [P] Ltd 414 ITR 122 squarely applies wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that if no exempt income is earned, no disallowance shall be made u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the Rules.. 6. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Era Infrastructure in ITA No. 204/2022 vide order dated 20.07.2022 further clarified that an amendment in the relevant…

DCIT, Circle- 4(2), New Delhi vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 8963/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 32

…t Years. The undisputed fact is that during the captioned Assessment Years, the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Caraf Builders & Constructions [P] Ltd 414 ITR 122 squarely applies wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that if no exempt income is earned, no disallowance shall be made u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the Rules.. 6. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Era Infrastructure in ITA No. 204/2022 vide order dated 20.07.2022 further clarified that an amendment in the relevant…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4432/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 32

…t Years. The undisputed fact is that during the captioned Assessment Years, the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Caraf Builders & Constructions [P] Ltd 414 ITR 122 squarely applies wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that if no exempt income is earned, no disallowance shall be made u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the Rules.. 6. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Era Infrastructure in ITA No. 204/2022 vide order dated 20.07.2022 further clarified that an amendment in the relevant…

Dr. Kamal Kumar Sethi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4525/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sidhant Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…AR pleaded that at best the disallowance may be restricted to the extent of the exempt income earned by the assessee in the year. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT v. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 122 (Delhi). The Ld. DR on the other hand supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. On consideration of the rival submissions we are inclined to accept the alternate plea of the Ld. AR that the disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the exempt dividend income earned by the assessee during the year. In Pr. CIT vs. Caraf Builders and Constructio…

M/S. Mahanivesh (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5348/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaita No. 5348/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Annunav Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. R. K. Panda, Accountant Member ITA No. 5348/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/s Mahanivesh (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, 13/34, W.E.A. Karol Bagh, Central Circle-4, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi C/o M/s V.P. Gupta & Co., Adv. & Solicitors, 501, Ansal Bhawan, 16, K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACM1750C Assessee by : Sh. Annunav Kumar, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 31.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 31.03.2022 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order…

Kalyani Steels Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

The appeal of the assesse is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1403/PUN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao() & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kalyani Steels Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mundhwa, Vs. Income-Tax Circle-14, Pune – 411 036 Aaykarsadan, Bodhi Tower, 548/2B, Salisbury Park, Gultekdi, Pune – 411 037. Pan No. Aaack7315D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. M.G Jasnani, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ount of disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the amount of the exempt income. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Joint Investments Vs. ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del) (ii) DCIT Vs. Craft Builders and Constructions (2019) 414 ITR 122 (Del) [SLP filed by the revenue was thereafter dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 112 taxman.com 322 (SC)] Kalyani Steels Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-14, Pune ITA No. 1403/Pun/2018 – A.Y 2015-16 10 (iii) Nirved Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [ITA 149 of 2017, dated 23.04.2019 (Bom) (iv) M/s Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT-IV (2015) 57 taxmann.com…

Dcm Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi

ITA 603/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Yagyasaini Kakkar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…tments which though had not yielded exempt income during the year, but shall yield such exempt income. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 122 (Del). Also, support his drawn from the following orders of the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal wherein a similar view had been taken : - Religare Securities Ltd. v. ACIT, ITA no. 6330/2017 decided on 25.02.2021 - ITAT Delhi. - Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, ITA No. 1590/2017 decided on 22.09.2021 - ITAT Bangalore. - NSL Rene…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Dcm Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 183/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Yagyasaini Kakkar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…tments which though had not yielded exempt income during the year, but shall yield such exempt income. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 122 (Del). Also, support his drawn from the following orders of the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal wherein a similar view had been taken : - Religare Securities Ltd. v. ACIT, ITA no. 6330/2017 decided on 25.02.2021 - ITAT Delhi. - Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, ITA No. 1590/2017 decided on 22.09.2021 - ITAT Bangalore. - NSL Rene…

Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(2), New Delhi

ITA 2400/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Aakash Deep Jain & Sh. N. K. Billaiya(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Dcit Ltd. Office No.8, 1St Floor, Vs Circle – 3 (2) Atma Ram Mansion, Scindia New Delhi House, K. G. Marg, Connaught Place Circus, New Delhi-110001 Pan No.Aaaca3232F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…owance u/s.14A should not exceed the exempt income. 6. We are of the considered view that this issue has now been well settled in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 414 ITR 122. 7. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra). We direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to the extent of the exempt income of Rs.1791459/-. The appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly dismissed. 6. Decision announced in the open court in the presence of both the representatives on 09.12.2021. (…

T.V. Today Network Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-25, New Delhi

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

ITA 7287/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…i High Court in 372 ITR 694 was not available with the assessee. The Hon'ble High Court has restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income. 11. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Caraf Builders and Construction 414 ITR 122. Since now we have the binding decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income of Rs.18,521/–. Ground No. 2 of Revenue’s appeal is, accordingly, dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 7287/DEL/2018 [Assessee ’s Appeal] 12. Th…

JCIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi vs. T.V. Today Network Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 7277/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…i High Court in 372 ITR 694 was not available with the assessee. The Hon'ble High Court has restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income. 11. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Caraf Builders and Construction 414 ITR 122. Since now we have the binding decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income of Rs.18,521/–. Ground No. 2 of Revenue’s appeal is, accordingly, dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 7287/DEL/2018 [Assessee ’s Appeal] 12. Th…

Amd Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi

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

ITA 5308/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 40Section 40A

…ccordingly, restricted the total disallowance to Rs. 1,34,268/-. 8. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt Ltd 414 ITR 122, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed exempt income. 9. The ld. DR strongly stated that the assessee itself has suo moto disallowed Rs. 1,34,268/- and the disallowance restricted to that amount by the ld. CIT(A) is fully justifiable. 10. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. It is true that the assessee h…

M/S Kanade Aqua Farms Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6 (3)(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, the Ground of appeal No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 151/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Kanade Aqua Farms Income Tax Officer- Pvt. Ltd., 3/21, Poddar Vs. 6(3)(3), Building No. 2, Dr. Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Maisheri Road, Near Aaykar Bhavan, Sandhurst Road Railway M.K. Marg, Station, Mumbai– 400009 Mumbai - 400020 Pan No. Aaack0421C (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Ms.Vinita Shah, A.R Revenue By : Shri Neeraj Kumar, D.R Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai (For Short „Cit(A)‟), Dated 03.10.2019, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟) Dated 13.11.2016 . 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us: 1. “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Learned Assessing Officer In Disallowing The Clearing Expenses Of Rs.

For Appellant: Ms.Vinita Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194CSection 40

…/s 14A cannot exceed the amount of the exempt income received by the assessee during the year is fortified by the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Joint Investments Vs. ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del) (ii) DCIT Vs. Craft Builders and Constructions (2019) 414 ITR 122 (Del) [SLP filed by the revenue was thereafter dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 112 taxman.com 322 (SC)] (iii) Nirved Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [ITA 149 of 2017, dated 23.04.2019 (Bom) (iv) M/s Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT-IV (2015) 57 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi) ITA No. 151/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 5 M/s Kanade Aqua Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO…

ACIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1394/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Acit-14(2)(1), M/S Maharashtra State Power Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Vs. Generation Company Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. G-9, Prakashgad, 2Nd Mumbai – 400 020 Floor, Anant Kanekar Marg, Station Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan No. Aaecm2935R (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, A.R Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman, D.R Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2021

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 145Section 14ASection 201(1)Section 40Section 40(1)(ia)

…) – [SLP dismissed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court]. viii. PCIT Vs. Oil Industries Development Board (2019) 262 Taxman 102 (SC) ix. CIT Vs. Celebrity Fashion Ltd. (Tax case Appeal No. 26 of 2018) (Mad HC) x. PCIT vs. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 122/ 261 Taxman 47 (Delhi) (HC) xi. PCIT vs. Ballapur Industries Ltd. (ITA No. 51 of 2016, dat. 13.10.2016) (Bom) Accordingly, finding no infirmity with the view taken by the CIT(A) who had rightly vacated the disallowance of Rs. 11,196/- made by the A.O u/s 14A of the Act, we uphold the same. The Ground of appeal No. 3 is dismissed. 14. We shall no…

International Cargo Terminals and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, in terms of our aforesaid observations, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6974/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () The Dcit, Central Circle-6(4), M/S International Cargo Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air Vs. Terminals & Infrastructure India Building, Nariman Point, Private Limited, Unit No.801, Mumbai – 400 021 Godrej Coliseum, C-Wing, Off Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion (East), Mumbai 400 022 Pan No. Aaacu5182C (Revenue) (Assessee) M/S International Cargo The Dcit, Central Circle-6(4), Terminals & Infrastructure Vs. Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air Private Limited, Unit No.801, India Building, Nariman Point, Godrej Coliseum, C-Wing, Mumbai – 400 021 Off Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion (East),Mumbai 400 022

For Appellant: Shri Y.P. Trivedi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ements: (i) Joint Investments Vs. ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del) ITA Nos. 6892 & 6974/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2016-17 10 The DCIT, Central Circle-6(4) Vs. M/s International Cargo Terminals & Infrastructure P. Ltd. (ii) DCIT Vs. Craft Builders and Constructions (2019) 414 ITR 122 (Del) [SLP filed by the revenue was thereafter dismissed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in 112 taxman.com 322 (SC)] (iii) Nirved Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [ITA 149 of 2017, dated 23.04.2019 (Bom) (iv) M/s Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT-IV (2015) 57 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi) (v) CIT Vs. M/s Lakhani Marketing Inc.(2014) 226 Taxman 45 (P&H) (vi) CIT Vs.…

Dy CIT CC 6 (4), Mumbai vs. M/S International Cargo Terminals & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, in terms of our aforesaid observations, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6892/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () The Dcit, Central Circle-6(4), M/S International Cargo Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air Vs. Terminals & Infrastructure India Building, Nariman Point, Private Limited, Unit No.801, Mumbai – 400 021 Godrej Coliseum, C-Wing, Off Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion (East), Mumbai 400 022 Pan No. Aaacu5182C (Revenue) (Assessee) M/S International Cargo The Dcit, Central Circle-6(4), Terminals & Infrastructure Vs. Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air Private Limited, Unit No.801, India Building, Nariman Point, Godrej Coliseum, C-Wing, Mumbai – 400 021 Off Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion (East),Mumbai 400 022

For Appellant: Shri Y.P. Trivedi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ements: (i) Joint Investments Vs. ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del) ITA Nos. 6892 & 6974/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2016-17 10 The DCIT, Central Circle-6(4) Vs. M/s International Cargo Terminals & Infrastructure P. Ltd. (ii) DCIT Vs. Craft Builders and Constructions (2019) 414 ITR 122 (Del) [SLP filed by the revenue was thereafter dismissed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in 112 taxman.com 322 (SC)] (iii) Nirved Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [ITA 149 of 2017, dated 23.04.2019 (Bom) (iv) M/s Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT-IV (2015) 57 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi) (v) CIT Vs. M/s Lakhani Marketing Inc.(2014) 226 Taxman 45 (P&H) (vi) CIT Vs.…