What is Pr. CIT v. HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd. authority for?

Disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn exempt income under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned.

How many judgments cite Pr. CIT v. HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd.?

31 judgments on BharatTax cite Pr. CIT v. HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd. (421 ITR 125), spanning 2020 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Pr. CIT v. HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 144C(3), Section 80D(2)(iii), Section 92B.

Pr. CIT v. HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd. (421 ITR 125)

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. KAKADE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2277/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2275 & 2277/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dcit, V Kakade Infrastructure Private Limited,20Th Floor, A Wing, Central Circle-2(2), S Pune. Marathon Futurx, N.M.Joshi Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan: Aadck5852G Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Jay Bhansali (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 A.Y.2014-15 Both Dated 30.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 28.03.2016 & 30.12.2016 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…and therefore, the provision of section 14A do not prohibit disallowance of expenditure in relation to exempt loss incurred by the assessee, is neither here nor there. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT v. HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd. [2020] 421 ITR 125 (Bom.) has held 'that disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income so earned by the assessee during the year under consideration.' If the disallowance is to be restricted to the amount of exempt income, the sequitur is that 5 ITA Nos.2275 & 2277/PUN/2025 [D] there can never be any disallowance u/s 14A in the absence of positive exempt income fo…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE, PUNE vs. KAKADE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2275/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2275 & 2277/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dcit, V Kakade Infrastructure Private Limited,20Th Floor, A Wing, Central Circle-2(2), S Pune. Marathon Futurx, N.M.Joshi Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan: Aadck5852G Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Jay Bhansali (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 A.Y.2014-15 Both Dated 30.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 28.03.2016 & 30.12.2016 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…and therefore, the provision of section 14A do not prohibit disallowance of expenditure in relation to exempt loss incurred by the assessee, is neither here nor there. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT v. HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd. [2020] 421 ITR 125 (Bom.) has held 'that disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income so earned by the assessee during the year under consideration.' If the disallowance is to be restricted to the amount of exempt income, the sequitur is that 5 ITA Nos.2275 & 2277/PUN/2025 [D] there can never be any disallowance u/s 14A in the absence of positive exempt income fo…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. S VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2282/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe

Section 143(3)(ii)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 92B

…income by following the decision Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for the A.Y.2009-2010 [ITA No.79/Mum/2015, dated 03/08/2020] which has in turn referred to judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd. (2020) 421 ITR 125 (Bom.) (HC). On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, we find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court had dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue holding that the disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn the exempt income made under Section 14A of the Act could not exceed the exempt income earned. In the present case the CIT(A) has, in effect,…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. S VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2281/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe

Section 143(3)(ii)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 92B

…income by following the decision Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for the A.Y.2009-2010 [ITA No.79/Mum/2015, dated 03/08/2020] which has in turn referred to judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd. (2020) 421 ITR 125 (Bom.) (HC). On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, we find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court had dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue holding that the disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn the exempt income made under Section 14A of the Act could not exceed the exempt income earned. In the present case the CIT(A) has, in effect,…

E-ALLY SECURITIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,RAIGAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE, PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 109/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Samir ShahFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha - JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2018-19 E-Ally Securities (India) Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, Circle [Pushpadeep Trading Pvt. Ltd. now merged Panvel, Mumbai with E-Ally Securities (India) Pvt. Ltd.] Vs. 805, Shah Prima, Plot No.13, Sector 2, Kharghar, New Mumbai, Raigarh - 410210 PAN: AACCE6918Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Samir Shah Department by : Shri Shashank Ojha - JCIT Date of hearing : 25-02-2025 Date of pronouncement : 26-05-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR vs. MESERS NARMADA DRINKS PRIVATE LIMITED, BILASPUR

In the result ground No. 2 & 3 of the appeal of the revenue stands rejected

ITA 89/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 89/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S Narmada Drinks Private Limited Circle-1(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Sirgitti Industrial Area, Tifra, Bilaspur Mahima Complex, Bilaspur (C.G.) (C.G.) Pan: Aaacn5880C (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 92C

…vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) (ii) Pr. CIT Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd. (2021) 127 taxmann.com 115 (Karnataka) (iii) Pr. CIT vs. Kohinoor Project (P) Ltd. (2020) 425 ITR 700 (Bom.) (iv) Pr. CIT vs. HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd. (2020) 421 ITR 125 (Born.) 8. Backed by our aforesaid observations, we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the disallowance worked out by the Assessing Officer u/s.14A of the Act, i.e., de-hors any exempt dividend income having been earned by the assessee during the year under consideration. We, thus, direct the Assessing Officer to vacate the disallo…

BHANDARA URBAN CO-OP BANK,BHANDARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 20/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.19 & 20/Nag/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bhandara Urban Co-Operative The Acit, Circle-2, Bank Ltd., V Nagpur. C/O.Mukesh Agrawal, S R.S.Bhattad & Associates, 33-A, Central Bazar Road, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur – 440010. Pan: Aaaft 7398 G Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Saket Bhatted – Ar Revenue By Dr. Kaumudi Patil- Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Were Heard Together As Common Issue Is Involved. Both These Appeals Are Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nagpur Dated 29.03.2019 For A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Emanating From Two Different Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…do not prohibit disallowance of expenditure in relation to exempt Bhandara Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., [A] loss incurred by the assessee, is neither here nor there. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT v. HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd. [2020] 421 ITR 125 (Bom.) has held 'that disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income so earned by the assessee during the year under consideration.' If the disallowance is to be restricted to the amount of exempt income, the sequitur is that there can never be any disallowance u/s 14A in the absence of positive exempt income for the year. Insofar as section 14A is…

BHANDARA URBAN CO-OP. BANK LTD,BHANDARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 19/NAG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.19 & 20/Nag/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bhandara Urban Co-Operative The Acit, Circle-2, Bank Ltd., V Nagpur. C/O.Mukesh Agrawal, S R.S.Bhattad & Associates, 33-A, Central Bazar Road, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur – 440010. Pan: Aaaft 7398 G Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Saket Bhatted – Ar Revenue By Dr. Kaumudi Patil- Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Were Heard Together As Common Issue Is Involved. Both These Appeals Are Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nagpur Dated 29.03.2019 For A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Emanating From Two Different Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…do not prohibit disallowance of expenditure in relation to exempt Bhandara Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., [A] loss incurred by the assessee, is neither here nor there. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT v. HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd. [2020] 421 ITR 125 (Bom.) has held 'that disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income so earned by the assessee during the year under consideration.' If the disallowance is to be restricted to the amount of exempt income, the sequitur is that there can never be any disallowance u/s 14A in the absence of positive exempt income for the year. Insofar as section 14A is…

DCIT-5(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. JSW INVESTMENTS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1088/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1085 & 1086/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) Jsw Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit-5(2)(1) Jsw Centre, Bandra 21, 3Rd Floor, Mittal Kurla Complex, Court, 22, Bandra (East), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajcs2498G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Lieder Panicker

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…in the case Pr.CIT Vs. Shalimar Pettel Feeds Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 547 P a g e | 5 ITA Nos. 1085 to 1088/Mum/2023 JSW Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT-5(2)(1) (Cal) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. HSBC Investment Direct (I) Ltd. (2020) 421 ITR 125 (Bom). Regarding contention of the assessee that only those investments should be considered for computing disallowance u/s 14A which yielded exempt income during the relevant assessment year, the ld. Counsel has referred decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2023) 453 ITR (Delhi). On the other hand,…

DCIT-5(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. JSW INVESTMENTS PVT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1087/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1085 & 1086/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) Jsw Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit-5(2)(1) Jsw Centre, Bandra 21, 3Rd Floor, Mittal Kurla Complex, Court, 22, Bandra (East), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajcs2498G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Lieder Panicker

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…in the case Pr.CIT Vs. Shalimar Pettel Feeds Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 547 P a g e | 5 ITA Nos. 1085 to 1088/Mum/2023 JSW Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT-5(2)(1) (Cal) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. HSBC Investment Direct (I) Ltd. (2020) 421 ITR 125 (Bom). Regarding contention of the assessee that only those investments should be considered for computing disallowance u/s 14A which yielded exempt income during the relevant assessment year, the ld. Counsel has referred decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2023) 453 ITR (Delhi). On the other hand,…

JSW INVESTMENTS PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-10, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1086/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1085 & 1086/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) Jsw Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit-5(2)(1) Jsw Centre, Bandra 21, 3Rd Floor, Mittal Kurla Complex, Court, 22, Bandra (East), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajcs2498G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Lieder Panicker

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…in the case Pr.CIT Vs. Shalimar Pettel Feeds Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 547 P a g e | 5 ITA Nos. 1085 to 1088/Mum/2023 JSW Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT-5(2)(1) (Cal) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. HSBC Investment Direct (I) Ltd. (2020) 421 ITR 125 (Bom). Regarding contention of the assessee that only those investments should be considered for computing disallowance u/s 14A which yielded exempt income during the relevant assessment year, the ld. Counsel has referred decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2023) 453 ITR (Delhi). On the other hand,…

JSW INVESTMENTS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT, (A)-10, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1085/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1085 & 1086/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) Jsw Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit-5(2)(1) Jsw Centre, Bandra 21, 3Rd Floor, Mittal Kurla Complex, Court, 22, Bandra (East), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajcs2498G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Lieder Panicker

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…in the case Pr.CIT Vs. Shalimar Pettel Feeds Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 547 P a g e | 5 ITA Nos. 1085 to 1088/Mum/2023 JSW Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT-5(2)(1) (Cal) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. HSBC Investment Direct (I) Ltd. (2020) 421 ITR 125 (Bom). Regarding contention of the assessee that only those investments should be considered for computing disallowance u/s 14A which yielded exempt income during the relevant assessment year, the ld. Counsel has referred decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2023) 453 ITR (Delhi). On the other hand,…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI vs. MESERS METEX ENGINEERS, BHILAI

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 247/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) M/S Metex Engineers, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.247/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Vs M/S Metex Engineers, Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR

Section 68

…. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 ( Delhi) (ii) Pr. CIT Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd. (2021) 127 taxmann.com 115 ( Karnataka) (iii) Pr. CIT Vs. Kohinoor Project (P) Ltd. (2020) 425 ITR 700 ( Bom.) (iv) Pr. CIT Vs. HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd. (2020) 421 ITR 125 (Bom.) 11,4 Ld AR further submitted that in a case decided by the coordinate bench of ITAT Raipur on the similar issue has taken a view, in the case of M/s. Ind Synergy Limited Vs. DCIT ITA No. 312/RPR/2016 dated 30.03.2022, wherein the finding of Tribunal is as under: “6. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, per…

MESERS METEX ENGINEERS,BHILAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 238/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) M/S Metex Engineers, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.247/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Vs M/S Metex Engineers, Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR

Section 68

…. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 ( Delhi) (ii) Pr. CIT Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd. (2021) 127 taxmann.com 115 ( Karnataka) (iii) Pr. CIT Vs. Kohinoor Project (P) Ltd. (2020) 425 ITR 700 ( Bom.) (iv) Pr. CIT Vs. HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd. (2020) 421 ITR 125 (Bom.) 11,4 Ld AR further submitted that in a case decided by the coordinate bench of ITAT Raipur on the similar issue has taken a view, in the case of M/s. Ind Synergy Limited Vs. DCIT ITA No. 312/RPR/2016 dated 30.03.2022, wherein the finding of Tribunal is as under: “6. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, per…

M/S. PODAR ADVISORY & CONSULTING ENTERPRISE P LTD.,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 162/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…any ‘exempt’ income warranting any disallowance on this score and for such a proposition has relied on the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of PCIT vs. HSBC Invest Direct 2 M/s Podar Advisory & Consulting Enterprise P. Ltd (India) Ltd in (2020) 421 ITR 125 (Bom.) wherein, the Hon’ble High Court held as under:- “3. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment rejecting the contentions, placed reliance on the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd vs. CIT, (2015) 281 CTR (Del) 447: (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del) in which it was held that when the assessee had not earned any income which was exempt…