PCIT v. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.

380 ITR 652High Court2016#4216 most cited

What is PCIT v. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Disallowance under Section 14A and Rule 8D requires the Assessing Officer to record specific satisfaction regarding the nexus between expenditure and exempt income, and cannot be mechanically applied without such satisfaction.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd. · Section 14A · Rule 8D · Assessing Officer satisfaction · nexus between expenditure and exempt income · mechanical invocation of Rule 8D

Sections most often in play

Section 11UASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 1961 - Sections 14ASection 1962 - Rule 8DSection 22Section 23

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(8)section 194hsection 80icsection 194jsection 40a(2)(b)section 14a(2)section 2(22)section 2(22)(e)section 40a(2)section 80iasection 80icommercial expediency

Judgments citing PCIT v. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…apply Rule 8D of the Rules:  Eicher Motors v. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) – SLP dismissed in CIT v. Eicher Motors Ltd.: S.L.P. (C) 27628 of 2018. / 408 ITR-OL 22 (St.)  PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.)  CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H)  CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del)  Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del)  CIT v. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd.: 370 ITR 338 (Del.)  DCIT vs. Jindal Photo Limited: ITA Nos. 814/Del./2011 (Del)  PTC India Ltd. v. DCIT: ITA Nos. 580 and 581 (Del) 2009 (Del)  Auchtel Products Ltd vs. ACIT: 52 SOT…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…apply Rule 8D of the Rules:  Eicher Motors v. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) – SLP dismissed in CIT v. Eicher Motors Ltd.: S.L.P. (C) 27628 of 2018. / 408 ITR-OL 22 (St.)  PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.)  CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H)  CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del)  Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del)  CIT v. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd.: 370 ITR 338 (Del.)  DCIT vs. Jindal Photo Limited: ITA Nos. 814/Del./2011 (Del)  PTC India Ltd. v. DCIT: ITA Nos. 580 and 581 (Del) 2009 (Del)  Auchtel Products Ltd vs. ACIT: 52 SOT…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2478/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…apply Rule 8D of the Rules:  Eicher Motors v. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) – SLP dismissed in CIT v. Eicher Motors Ltd.: S.L.P. (C) 27628 of 2018. / 408 ITR-OL 22 (St.)  PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.)  CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H)  CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del)  Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del)  CIT v. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd.: 370 ITR 338 (Del.)  DCIT vs. Jindal Photo Limited: ITA Nos. 814/Del./2011 (Del)  PTC India Ltd. v. DCIT: ITA Nos. 580 and 581 (Del) 2009 (Del)  Auchtel Products Ltd vs. ACIT: 52 SOT…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOLKATA vs. SNOWFALL COMMOTRADE PVT LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 2087/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata………...….……………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Snowfall Commotrade Pvt. Ltd….……………………………...…..…..Respondent 27, Modi Building, R N Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001. [Pan: Aaics0531J] C.O. 85/Kol/2025 (In Ita No.2087/Kol/2025) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Snowfall Commotrade Pvt. Ltd.….……………………………… Cross-Objector 27, Modi Building, R N Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001. [Pan: Aaics0531J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata ……………………………..…...…..…………….Respondent Appearances By: Shri J. M. Thad, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 14ASection 250

…rd to demonstrate any nexus between the expenditure claimed and the exempt income earned by the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Om Prakash Khaitan (376 ITR 390) and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (380 ITR 652) have categorically held that the recording of satisfaction by the A.O. is a sine qua non for invoking Section 14A and applying Rule 8D. In the absence of such satisfaction, the mechanical invocation of Rule 8D cannot be sustained. ITA No.2087/Kol/2025 & C.O. 85/Kol/2025 M/s Snowfall Commotrade Pvt. Ltd Furthermore, it is now a settled law that…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2731/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…r dated 07.02.2014 in Civil Appeal No. 468/2014 - CIT v. Max India Ltd: 388 ITR 81 (P&H) - H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: 399 ITR 576 (Delhi) - HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT: 366 ITR 505 (Bom) - HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT: 383 ITR 529 (Bom) - CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd : 380 ITR 652 (P&H) - Lubi Submersibles Ltd.: ITA No.868 of 2010 (Guj.) - CIT Y. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. : 352 ITR 583 (Guj) - CIT v. Torrent Power Ltd.: 363 ITR 474 (Guj) In view of above, it is respectfully submitted that no part of interest expenditure can be disallowed under section 14A of the Act. It is also pertinent to point out that the assessin…

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40a

…R 445 (SC) - PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd.: [2019] 261 Taxman 179 (Delhi) 32 - H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: 399 ITR 576 (Del) - Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) - PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.) - CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H) - CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del) - Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del) (Del) - CIT v. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd.: 370 ITR 338 (Del.) Even otherwise, there is no nexus of expenses, like interest expenditure and other administrative expenses with investments, warranting disallowance under secti…

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

ITA 706/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 145Section 1lSection 80ISection 92C

…SC) v. PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd.:[2019] 261 Taxman 179 (Delhi) vi. H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: 399 ITR 576 (Del) vii. Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) viii. PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.) ix. CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H) x. CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del) xi. Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del) xii. CIT v. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd.: 370 ITR 338 (Del.) 42. It was further submitted that even otherwise, there is no nexus of expenses, like interest expenditure and other administrative expenses with investments,…

BACHHRAJ & COMPANY PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 3 (1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the same terms

ITA 7349/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.7348 & 7349/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Bachhraj & Company The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bajaj Bhawan, Room No. 607, Aayakar 226, Nariman Point, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Aaacb5589N (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.R Revenue By : Shri Kprr Murty, D.R Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murty, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITA Nos. 7348 & 7349/Mum/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 1 Bachhraj & Company Private Limited Vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (VICE PRESIDENT) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos.7348 & 7349/MUM/2019 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Bachhraj & Company The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, 2nd Floor, Vs. of Income-tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bajaj Bhawan, Room No. 607, Aayakar 226, Nariman Point, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN No. AAACB5589N (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by : Shri Kirit Ka…

BACHHRAJ & COMPANY PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 3 (1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the same terms

ITA 7348/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.7348 & 7349/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Bachhraj & Company The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bajaj Bhawan, Room No. 607, Aayakar 226, Nariman Point, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Aaacb5589N (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.R Revenue By : Shri Kprr Murty, D.R Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murty, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITA Nos. 7348 & 7349/Mum/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 1 Bachhraj & Company Private Limited Vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (VICE PRESIDENT) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos.7348 & 7349/MUM/2019 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Bachhraj & Company The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, 2nd Floor, Vs. of Income-tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bajaj Bhawan, Room No. 607, Aayakar 226, Nariman Point, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN No. AAACB5589N (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by : Shri Kirit Ka…

HERO MOTOCROP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

…1 ITR 445 (SC) - PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd.: [2019] 261 Taxman 179 (Delhi) - H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: 399 ITR 576 (Del) - Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) - PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.) - CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H) - CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del) Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs. ACIT - Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del) - CIT v. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd.: 370 ITR 338 (Del.) 40.0.2 It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that even otherwise, there is no nexus of expenses, like interest expenditure and other…

ATS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 5601/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…tisfactory.” Similar view have been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., 370 ITR 338 (Del.) (HC). The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Abhishek Industries Ltd., 380 ITR 652 (P & H) (HC) held that “onus is on A.O. to record satisfaction that interest bearing funds used for investment to earn tax free income.” Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee and in the absence of any satisfaction recorded by the A.O. for making disallowance under s…

ATS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 5408/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…tisfactory.” Similar view have been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., 370 ITR 338 (Del.) (HC). The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Abhishek Industries Ltd., 380 ITR 652 (P & H) (HC) held that “onus is on A.O. to record satisfaction that interest bearing funds used for investment to earn tax free income.” Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee and in the absence of any satisfaction recorded by the A.O. for making disallowance under s…

M/S. ATS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 3080/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…tisfactory.” Similar view have been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., 370 ITR 338 (Del.) (HC). The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Abhishek Industries Ltd., 380 ITR 652 (P & H) (HC) held that “onus is on A.O. to record satisfaction that interest bearing funds used for investment to earn tax free income.” Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee and in the absence of any satisfaction recorded by the A.O. for making disallowance under s…

HARPARSHAD AND COMPANY PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1129/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. D.R
Section 14A

…de by the assessee was unreasonable and unsatisfactory.” Similar view have been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., 370 ITR 338. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Abhishek Industries Ltd., 380 ITR 652 held that “onus upon A.O. to record satisfaction that interest bearing funds used for investment to earn tax free income”. The assessee in the 8 ITA.No.1128 & 1129/Del./2017 M/s. Harparshad and Company Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad. present case has claimed that receipt of dividend income does not involve any expenditure since the dividend is directly cr…

HARPARSHAD AND COMPANY PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1128/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. D.R
Section 14A

…de by the assessee was unreasonable and unsatisfactory.” Similar view have been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., 370 ITR 338. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Abhishek Industries Ltd., 380 ITR 652 held that “onus upon A.O. to record satisfaction that interest bearing funds used for investment to earn tax free income”. The assessee in the 8 ITA.No.1128 & 1129/Del./2017 M/s. Harparshad and Company Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad. present case has claimed that receipt of dividend income does not involve any expenditure since the dividend is directly cr…

SHRI SAMEER SUNEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 190/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Senior DR
Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT, SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.190/Del./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) Shri Sameer Suneja, vs. ACIT, Circle 31 (1), C/o Dr. R.K. Suneja, New Delhi. 48, North West Avenue, Club Road, Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi – 110 026. (PAN : AATPS1322E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri K.V.S. Gupta, Advocate Shri Pankaj Khanna, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Surender Pal, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 13.06.2019 Date of Order : 14.06.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER :…

DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN SPECIAL STEELS LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 407/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Guptadci T M/S Vardhman Special Steels Ltd Circle- 1, Vardhman Premises, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana Ludhiana Vs. Pan No. – Aadcv4812B Appellant Respondent M/S Vardhman Special Steels Ltd Dci T Vardhman Premises, Chandigarh Road, Circle- 1, Ludhiana Ludhiana Vs. Pan No. – Aadcv4812B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Vineet Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. G.S. Phani Kishor, CI T(DR)
Section 14ASection 250(6)

…essee of the amount disallowable u/s 14A was absent. Therefore, following the proposition of law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Deepak Mittal, (2014) 361 ITR 131 (P&H) & CIT vs. Abhisek Industries Ltd., Page 2 of 8 (2016) 380 ITR 652 (P&H), that the aforesaid satisfaction of the AO was a necessary prerequisite for invoking the machinery provision of Rule 8D, the disallowance made u/s 14A was deleted. Our attention was drawn to the relevant findings of the ITAT at para 12-14 of the order .) Drawing our attention to the said paragraphs, Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended th…

M/S VARDHMAN SPECIAL STEELS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 350/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Guptadci T M/S Vardhman Special Steels Ltd Circle- 1, Vardhman Premises, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana Ludhiana Vs. Pan No. – Aadcv4812B Appellant Respondent M/S Vardhman Special Steels Ltd Dci T Vardhman Premises, Chandigarh Road, Circle- 1, Ludhiana Ludhiana Vs. Pan No. – Aadcv4812B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Vineet Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. G.S. Phani Kishor, CI T(DR)
Section 14ASection 250(6)

…essee of the amount disallowable u/s 14A was absent. Therefore, following the proposition of law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Deepak Mittal, (2014) 361 ITR 131 (P&H) & CIT vs. Abhisek Industries Ltd., Page 2 of 8 (2016) 380 ITR 652 (P&H), that the aforesaid satisfaction of the AO was a necessary prerequisite for invoking the machinery provision of Rule 8D, the disallowance made u/s 14A was deleted. Our attention was drawn to the relevant findings of the ITAT at para 12-14 of the order .) Drawing our attention to the said paragraphs, Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended th…

M/S SWARAJ ENGINES LTD.,MOHALI vs. DCIT, C-6(1), MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1366/CHANDI/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri A.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR
Section 14ASection 250(6)

…ntiate our claim, we rely on the following precedents: 14. Coming to the proposition regarding the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Act which has been laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Abhishek Industries Ltd.(2016) 380 ITR 652(P&H) and Deepak Mittal (supra), we find that the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Abhishek Industries Ltd. (supra), while dealing with the issue, held that the satisfaction to be recorded must be based on credible and relevant evidence. The Hon'ble High Court has held that onus to prove that the claim of the assessee was incorrect lies on the sh…

RESURGERE MINES & MINERALS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee partly allowed

ITA 6601/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri O.P. Kant, A.M.

For Appellant: Ms. Umang LuthraFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR

…1 ITR 204 (P&H) noted that “Assessee claimed old investments out of capital and reserves, but, no separate amount borrowed for making investment - No disallowance be made. The Honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Abhishek Industries Limited 380 ITR 652 (P&H) held that “onus is upon assessing officer to record satisfaction that interest bearing funds used for investment to earn tax free income”. The Honourable Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance 21 ITA.No.6601/Del./2014 Resurgere Mines & Minerals India Ltd., New Delhi. Utility and Power Limited 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) held that “when assessee…

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

PCIT v. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd. (380 ITR 652) — Cited in 28 Judgments | BharatTax