PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala

391 ITR 218High Court2017#392 most cited

What is PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala authority for?

Income from shares and securities held by banks as stock-in-trade constitutes business income, hence Section 14A disallowance is not attracted. Further, any disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual amount of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year.

228

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala · Section 14A disallowance · shares and securities held by bank · stock-in-trade · income from securities business income · disallowance under Section 14A limit · disallowance cannot exceed exempt income · Rule 8D application disallowance · Supreme Court dismissal of SLP · 391 ITR 218

Also reported as

78 Taxmann.com 3259 Taxmann 315

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 115JBSection 8DSection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 143(3)Section 90Section 91
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 43dsection 36(2)(v)section 36(1)(viii)section 10(34)section 36(1)(viia)interest on securitiessection 36(2)prohibited by lawdisallowance under section 14asection 129section 115jb(2)section 36(1)(vii)

Judgments citing PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hubli vs. M/S. Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank, Dharwad

In the result the appeal is Partly allowed

ITA 1392/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri Pranav Krishna, & Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1391 & 1392/Bang/2016 Assessment year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Jt. Commissioner Vs. M/s Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, of Income-tax, Head Office, H.O Building Circle-2(1), Belgaum Road, Hubli. Dharwad. PAN: AAAAK 6324Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT CO Nos.107 & 108/Bang/2017 [in ITA No. 1391 & 1392/Bang/2016] Assessment year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Head Office, H.O Building of Income-tax, Belgaum Road, Circle-2(1), Dh…

Shri. Shankarlal Gilada vs. The Income Tax Officer

ITA/200002/2018HC Karnataka22 Jan 2020

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260A

…326 ITR 1] . Therefore, to that extent, depending upon the facts of each case, the expenditure incurred in acquiring those shares will have to be apportioned. 49. We note from the facts in State Bank of Patiala case [CIT v. State Bank of Patiala, (2017) 391 ITR 218 (P&H)] 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 8-D of the Rules and holding that Section 14-A of the Act would be applicable. In spite of this exercise of apportionment of expenditure carried out by th…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Syndicate Bank

ITA/97/2010HC Karnataka17 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 14ASection 260

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI I.T.A. NO.97 OF 2010 C/W I.T.A. NO.99 OF 2010 I.T.A. NO.97 OF 2010 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, ATTAVATA MANGALORE. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1, UDUPI. ... APPELLANTS (By Sri. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S. SYNDICATE BANK SYNDICATE HOUSE MANIPAL. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION…

Siroya Developers Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Siroya Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 3668/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Siroya Developers Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3(3)(2), 808, Raheja Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri N. Padmanaban, Sr. A.R
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…observed as under:- “9. The position becomes clear and beyond doubt when we refer to the factual position in the appeal preferred by the Revenue against the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. State Bank of Patiala [2017]. 391 ITR 218/245 Taxman 273/78 taxman.com 3 which was also decided with the decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. (Supra). In State Bank of Patiala (Supra) the assessing Officer had applied Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962, but had restricted the disallowance to the amount claimed as exempt income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had enhanced and in…

Essar Ports Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1831/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Essar Ports Ltd. Dcit, 5(1)(2) (Formerly Known As Essar Shipping Ports & Logistics Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, 11, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 034

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, cit D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 14ASection 92C

…is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Joint Investments Vs. CIT ( 372 ITR 694) (Del). Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Pr. CIT Vs. State Bank of Patiala (2017) 393 ITR 476 (P & H). The „Special Leave Petition‟ (for short „SLP‟) filed by the revenue against the aforesaid the order of the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana had been dismissed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Principal CIT, Patiala Vs. State Bank of Patiala (2018) 259 Taxman 314 (SC). Further, the coordinate benches of the Tribunal had also conclu…

Dinesh Jayantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 6701/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Dinesh Jayantilal Jain, Vs. I.T.O.-21(1)(3), 208/209, Jodia Mansion, Mumbai. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mumbai. Pan/Gir No.Aabpj 4702 F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ules amounting to Rs. 6,57,235/-. It is now well settled by various judicial pronouncements that the disallowance U/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT Vs State Bank of Patiala (2017) 393 ITR 476 (P&H) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Caraf Builders & Constructions (P) Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 122 (Del) have held that the disallowance U/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt 3 Dinesh Jayantilal Jain Vs ITO income. The ld AR also placed on record various judicial pronouncements of the ITAT to the same effect. We h…

ACIT, Ltu - 2, Kolkata vs. M/S. Uco Bank, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 584/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 201Section 40

…the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also extensively 4 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 M/s. UCO Bank dealt with the Revenue's appeal in the case of State Bank of Patiala arising from the decision of the Hori'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court reported in 391 ITR 218. In the said judgment the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had taken note of the fact that the banking companies in the course of carrying on their banking business were required to hold shares & securities and the expenses were incurred in connection with such banking business and the income therefrom was assessable under the head "Profits &…

Smt. Kavita Dipesh Shah, Surat vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.219/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Kavita Dipesh Shah, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 1, Vishal House, Next To Gautam Income-Tax- 2, Surat Market, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat. [Pan: Anhps 4998 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P. Singh, Cit(D.R.)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 57Section 8D

…Kavita Dipesh Shah v. Pr. CIT-2 Surat /ITA No.219/SRT/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 Page 1 of 16 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.219/SRT/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Kavita Dipesh Shah, Vs. Principal Commissioner of 1, Vishal House, Next to Gautam Income-Tax- 2, Surat Market, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat. [PAN: ANHPS 4998 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by Shri O.P…

Shri Dipesh L. Shah, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.218/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Dipesh L Shah, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 1, Vishal House, Next To Gautam Income-Tax- 2, Surat Market, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road Surat [Pan: Afsps 3839J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Prasenjit Singh, Cit(D.R.)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 57Section 8D

…Dipesh L Shah v. Pr. CIT-2 Surat /ITA No.218/SRT/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 Page 1 of 15 आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,सुरत"यायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.218/SRT/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Dipesh L Shah, Vs. Principal Commissioner of 1, Vishal House, Next To Gautam Income-Tax- 2, Surat Market, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road Surat [PAN: AFSPS 3839J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by Shri Prasenjit Singh, CIT(…

Masitia Capital Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 10 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3442/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari

…n of the learned Authorised Representative is, the disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D should not exceed the exempt income earned during the year. In support of such contention he relied upon the following decisions:– i) PCIT v/s State Bank of Patiala, 393 ITR 476 (P&H); ii) Joint Investment v/s CIT, 372 ITR 694 (Del.); and iii) Indus Valley Investments v/s DCIT, ITA no.3763/Del./2013, dated 29.04.2019. 11. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). 12. We have considered rival submissions and perused material…

Idbi Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is

ITA 3423/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…t in the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also extensively dealt with the Revenue's appeal in the case IDBI Bank Ltd (AY’s 2008-09, 2011-12 to 2013-14) of State Bank of Patiala arising from the decision of the Hon'ble & Haryana High Court reported in 391 ITR 218. In the said judgment the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had taken note of the fact that the banking companies in the course of carrying on their banking business were required to hold shares & securities and the expenses were incurred in connection with such banking business and the income therefrom was assessable under the head "Profits &…

Plaza Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, 10(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2863/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh Ay 2013-14 Ay 2014-15

Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH ,JUDICIAL MEMBER AY 2013-14 AY 2014-15 Plaza Hotels Pvt Ltd vs DCIT, 10(3)(2), Mumbai 70-C, Nehru Road Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-99 PAN : AAACP2117N APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT AY 2013-14 AY 2014-15 DCIT, 10(3)(2), Mumbai vs Plaza Hotels Pvt Ltd 70-C, Nehru Road Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-99 PAN : AAACP2117N APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Assessee by Shri Arun G Verman (AR) Revenue by Shri Choudhary Arunkumar Singh Date of hearing 27-08-2019 Date of pronouncement 30-08-2019 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, J…

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M Suresh Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4636/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Manish Singh
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…Taxman 117/59 taxmann.com 295 has held that disallowance under Section 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income earned during the year. The same view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Pr. CIT v. State Bank of India, [2017] 393 ITR 476/88 taxmann.com 667 (Punj. & Har.). In view of the legal principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A r/w Rule 8D to the exempt income 5 M. Suresh Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 4636/M/2015 & CO No. 104/M/2016 earned by the assessee during the year. Further, while co…

DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. K. Girdharilal International Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4036/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4036 To 4038 /Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. K. Girdharlal International Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax 5(2)(1) Vs. 1011 Prasad Chambers, Room No. 571, 5Th Floor, Opera House, Mumbai- Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 400004. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacck6101F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) Assessee By: Ms. Veena Purohit (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 21.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. Ita. No.4036/M/2018:- 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10

For Appellant: Ms. Veena Purohit (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…case of CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd (2014) 90 CCH 0081 — Del-HC, it has been held that there can be no disallowance u/s 14A in the absence of any exempt income. In CIT v. ITA. Nos.4036 to 4038/M/2018 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 State Bank of Patiala [393 ITR 476 (P&H)]. the amount of disallowance u/s 14A was restricted to the amount of exempt income only and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision dated February 12, 2018 in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi & Others (supra) has upheld this view as under: 40) We note from the facts in the State Bank of…

Gajanan Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

Accordingly this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 4522/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

Section 14A

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) I.T.A. No. 4522/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Gajanan Enterprises ACIT Circle-17(1) Vs. 4th Floor, Rustom Building Mumbai. 29, Veer Nariman Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001. PAN : AAKFG7595A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri Chaitanya Anjaria Date of Hearing 4.7.2019 Date of Pronouncement 23.8.2019 O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of learned CIT-A dated 25.5.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2013-14. 2. The issue raised is that learned CIT-A erred in sustaining the…

DCIT-5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Winsome Diamonds and Jewellery Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Su-Raj Diamonds & Jewellery Ltd), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3982/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3982/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit-5(3)(2) M/S Winsome Diamonds & Jewellery Ltd. Room No.573, 5Th Floor [Formerly Known As Su-Raj Diamond & Jewellery Ltd.] बनाम/ 906-908, The Plaza, 55 Gamdevi Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Near Dharm Palace M.K. Road Grant Road, Mumbai-400 007. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-5516-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh - Ld.Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 20/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2014-15 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-10 Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-10, Mumbai/11101/2016-17 Dated 23/03/2018 Qua Deletion Of Disallowance U/S 14A.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh - Ld.Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…doing so, reliance was placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT [372 ITR 694], CIT V/s Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. [90 CCH 81] & the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT V/s State Bank of Patiala [393 ITR 476] as confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in bunch of appeals titled as Maxopp 3 M/s. Winsome Diamonds & Jewellery Ltd. Assessment Year :2014-15 Investments Ltd. V/s CIT dated 12/02/2018. Aggrieved the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. Before us, it is controverted fact that the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year un…

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4923/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 115JSection 14A

…ction 14A r/w rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee in a particular assessment year. In this context, we may refer to the following decisions:– i) Joint Investments v/s CIT, 372 ITR 694 (Del.); and ii) PCIT v/s State Bank of Patiala, 393 ITR 476 (P&H). 10. In fact, in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2010–11, the Tribunal, while deciding identical issue in ITA no.1654/Mum./2016, dated 1st February 2019 has held that disallowance under section 14A of the Act has to be restricted to the exempt income earned during the year. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the Assessing Officer t…

Oasis Securities Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 4561/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

Section 147Section 14A

…this case. 13. Upon hearing both the counsel and perusing the records, I find that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investment (402 ITR 640) has upheld Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in the case of PCIT vs. State Bank of Patiala [2017] 391 ITR 218, wherein restriction of disallowance u/s. 14A to the extent of exempt income earned has been upheld. Hence, it is now settled that no disallowance can be done over and above exempt income earned. Now in this case, it is the submission of learned Counsel of the assessee that the assessee has not earned any exempt income in as much as dividend inco…

DCIT - 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Chlorosulf Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2013-2014

ITA 3648/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Dcit-1(1) (1), M/S Chlorosulf Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 533, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Manek Mahal, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, 90, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacc2436P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak M. Jain (AR)For Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen (DR)
Section 10Section 143Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The DCIT-1(1) (1), M/s Chlorosulf Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 533, 5th Floor, 6th Floor, Manek Mahal, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, 90, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACC2436P (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen (DR) Assessee by : Shri Deepak M. Jain (AR) Date of Hearing: 17/07/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 24/07/2019 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order…

Kumar Organic Products Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1062/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 (Assessment years:2007-08, 2010-11, 2012-13 to 2015-16) M/s. Kumar Organic Products Ltd., 819/C, Usha Krishan Centre, 13th Cross, 7th Block(West), JSS College Circle, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560082. … Appellant PAN:AAACK6745P Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri H.N.Khincha, CA. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 18/07/2019 Date of pronouncement: 19/07/2…