Pr. CIT v. India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd.

376 ITR 553High Court2015#2601 most cited

What is Pr. CIT v. India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd. authority for?

When an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds available to make investments that yield exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A is justified, particularly concerning interest expenditure.

45

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Pr. CIT v. India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd. · India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd. 376 ITR 553 · Section 14A disallowance · expenditure for exempt income · interest-free funds for investment · sufficient own funds · no disallowance under Section 14A · Rule 8D application · Gujarat High Court 2015 · nexus borrowed funds exempt income

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 8D

Issues it is cited on

section 14bsection 10(33)section 40a(7)wholly and exclusively for businesssection 28(iv)section 43b(b)section 36(2)going concernsection 14a disallowancesection 14a(1)business expediencysection 36(1)(vii)

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd.

AGRASEN ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1085/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 111ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…on 14A of the Act. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal. At this stage, decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. India Gelatine & Chemicals Limited, reported in [2015] 376 ITR 553 [Gujarat] needs a reference. In the said decision, it is observed and held by the Division Bench of this Court that when the assessee had sufficient interest- free funds out of which concerned investments had been made, disallowance under Section 14A is not justified.” The SLP filed against the said judgment has been dismissed by Hon’ble Suprem…

GRUH FINANCE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2338/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms Arti N Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B P Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…s interest bearing fund vis-a-vis its impugned tax free investment. It has further come on record that assessee's interest free funds far exceed its tax free investment. We observe in these facts that an inference as per Hon'ble jurisdictional decision (2015) 376 ITR 553 (Guj) PCIT vs. India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd. can safely withdrawn that the impugned tax free funds have been made from non interest We thus delete this third item of disallowance. Accordingly uphold CIT(A)’s enhancement action under challenge in principle. We now come to an equally important aspect as to Whether Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disa…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

ITA 2067/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…ch as on 31-3-2002 stood at Share Capital Rs.6491.87 lakh and Reserves and Surplus at Rs.4350.14 lakh. The AR placed reliance on following judicial precedents: 1. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 358 ITR 323 (Guj) 2. India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd. 376 ITR 553 (Guj) 3. South Indian Bank Ltd. 438 ITR 1 (SC) 53. On the other hand, the DR relied on the order of AO and CIT(A). The DR specifically pointed out that both AO and CIT(A) have concluded that disallowance on account of administrative and miscellaneous expenditure has been incurred by the assessee and therefore there has to be some disallowance on…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

ITA 2066/AHD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…ch as on 31-3-2002 stood at Share Capital Rs.6491.87 lakh and Reserves and Surplus at Rs.4350.14 lakh. The AR placed reliance on following judicial precedents: 1. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 358 ITR 323 (Guj) 2. India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd. 376 ITR 553 (Guj) 3. South Indian Bank Ltd. 438 ITR 1 (SC) 53. On the other hand, the DR relied on the order of AO and CIT(A). The DR specifically pointed out that both AO and CIT(A) have concluded that disallowance on account of administrative and miscellaneous expenditure has been incurred by the assessee and therefore there has to be some disallowance on…

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

ITA 1783/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…ch as on 31-3-2002 stood at Share Capital Rs.6491.87 lakh and Reserves and Surplus at Rs.4350.14 lakh. The AR placed reliance on following judicial precedents: 1. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 358 ITR 323 (Guj) 2. India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd. 376 ITR 553 (Guj) 3. South Indian Bank Ltd. 438 ITR 1 (SC) 53. On the other hand, the DR relied on the order of AO and CIT(A). The DR specifically pointed out that both AO and CIT(A) have concluded that disallowance on account of administrative and miscellaneous expenditure has been incurred by the assessee and therefore there has to be some disallowance on…

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

ITA 1782/AHD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…ch as on 31-3-2002 stood at Share Capital Rs.6491.87 lakh and Reserves and Surplus at Rs.4350.14 lakh. The AR placed reliance on following judicial precedents: 1. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 358 ITR 323 (Guj) 2. India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd. 376 ITR 553 (Guj) 3. South Indian Bank Ltd. 438 ITR 1 (SC) 53. On the other hand, the DR relied on the order of AO and CIT(A). The DR specifically pointed out that both AO and CIT(A) have concluded that disallowance on account of administrative and miscellaneous expenditure has been incurred by the assessee and therefore there has to be some disallowance on…

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

ITA 1594/AHD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…ch as on 31-3-2002 stood at Share Capital Rs.6491.87 lakh and Reserves and Surplus at Rs.4350.14 lakh. The AR placed reliance on following judicial precedents: 1. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 358 ITR 323 (Guj) 2. India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd. 376 ITR 553 (Guj) 3. South Indian Bank Ltd. 438 ITR 1 (SC) 53. On the other hand, the DR relied on the order of AO and CIT(A). The DR specifically pointed out that both AO and CIT(A) have concluded that disallowance on account of administrative and miscellaneous expenditure has been incurred by the assessee and therefore there has to be some disallowance on…

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

ITA 1291/AHD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…ch as on 31-3-2002 stood at Share Capital Rs.6491.87 lakh and Reserves and Surplus at Rs.4350.14 lakh. The AR placed reliance on following judicial precedents: 1. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 358 ITR 323 (Guj) 2. India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd. 376 ITR 553 (Guj) 3. South Indian Bank Ltd. 438 ITR 1 (SC) 53. On the other hand, the DR relied on the order of AO and CIT(A). The DR specifically pointed out that both AO and CIT(A) have concluded that disallowance on account of administrative and miscellaneous expenditure has been incurred by the assessee and therefore there has to be some disallowance on…

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

ITA 1290/AHD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…ch as on 31-3-2002 stood at Share Capital Rs.6491.87 lakh and Reserves and Surplus at Rs.4350.14 lakh. The AR placed reliance on following judicial precedents: 1. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 358 ITR 323 (Guj) 2. India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd. 376 ITR 553 (Guj) 3. South Indian Bank Ltd. 438 ITR 1 (SC) 53. On the other hand, the DR relied on the order of AO and CIT(A). The DR specifically pointed out that both AO and CIT(A) have concluded that disallowance on account of administrative and miscellaneous expenditure has been incurred by the assessee and therefore there has to be some disallowance on…

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

ITA 1773/AHD/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…ch as on 31-3-2002 stood at Share Capital Rs.6491.87 lakh and Reserves and Surplus at Rs.4350.14 lakh. The AR placed reliance on following judicial precedents: 1. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 358 ITR 323 (Guj) 2. India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd. 376 ITR 553 (Guj) 3. South Indian Bank Ltd. 438 ITR 1 (SC) 53. On the other hand, the DR relied on the order of AO and CIT(A). The DR specifically pointed out that both AO and CIT(A) have concluded that disallowance on account of administrative and miscellaneous expenditure has been incurred by the assessee and therefore there has to be some disallowance on…

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

ITA 1772/AHD/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…ch as on 31-3-2002 stood at Share Capital Rs.6491.87 lakh and Reserves and Surplus at Rs.4350.14 lakh. The AR placed reliance on following judicial precedents: 1. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 358 ITR 323 (Guj) 2. India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd. 376 ITR 553 (Guj) 3. South Indian Bank Ltd. 438 ITR 1 (SC) 53. On the other hand, the DR relied on the order of AO and CIT(A). The DR specifically pointed out that both AO and CIT(A) have concluded that disallowance on account of administrative and miscellaneous expenditure has been incurred by the assessee and therefore there has to be some disallowance on…

GUJARAT STATE FERTILISERS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DY,CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 624/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT D.R. &
Section 14A

…ITA No. 1403/Ahd/2014. He further stated that Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has confirmed the order of ITAT in Tax Appeal No. 100 of 2019. 9. The AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd. [2015] 376 ITR 553 where the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court upheld the principle that for a disallowance under Section 14A to be valid, there must be a clear nexus between the interest-bearing funds and the investments made in tax-exempt income- generating assets. Without such evidence, the disallowance cannot stand. The AR also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’b…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, VADODARA vs. GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 547/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT D.R. &
Section 14A

…ITA No. 1403/Ahd/2014. He further stated that Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has confirmed the order of ITAT in Tax Appeal No. 100 of 2019. 9. The AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd. [2015] 376 ITR 553 where the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court upheld the principle that for a disallowance under Section 14A to be valid, there must be a clear nexus between the interest-bearing funds and the investments made in tax-exempt income- generating assets. Without such evidence, the disallowance cannot stand. The AR also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’b…

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…on 14A of the Act. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal. At this stage, decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. India Gelatine & Chemicals Limited, reported in [2015] 376 ITR 553 [Gujarat] needs a reference. In the said decision, it is observed and held by the Division Bench of this Court that when the assessee had sufficient interest- free funds out of which concerned investments had been made, disallowance under Section 14A is not justified.” The SLP filed against the said judgment has been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme…

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 119/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…interest free funds available for making the investments in the equity shares. Placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. reported in [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) and HDFC Bank Ltd. 376 ITR 553, it is contended that interest disallowance is uncalled for in all the impugned four Assessment Years. 9.1. So far as the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules is concerned it was claimed that as regards Assessment Years 2013-14, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer at Rs.2,42,350/-, the same may be confirmed. As regards Asses…

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 118/KOL/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…interest free funds available for making the investments in the equity shares. Placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. reported in [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) and HDFC Bank Ltd. 376 ITR 553, it is contended that interest disallowance is uncalled for in all the impugned four Assessment Years. 9.1. So far as the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules is concerned it was claimed that as regards Assessment Years 2013-14, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer at Rs.2,42,350/-, the same may be confirmed. As regards Asses…

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 117/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…interest free funds available for making the investments in the equity shares. Placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. reported in [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) and HDFC Bank Ltd. 376 ITR 553, it is contended that interest disallowance is uncalled for in all the impugned four Assessment Years. 9.1. So far as the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules is concerned it was claimed that as regards Assessment Years 2013-14, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer at Rs.2,42,350/-, the same may be confirmed. As regards Asses…

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 116/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…interest free funds available for making the investments in the equity shares. Placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. reported in [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) and HDFC Bank Ltd. 376 ITR 553, it is contended that interest disallowance is uncalled for in all the impugned four Assessment Years. 9.1. So far as the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules is concerned it was claimed that as regards Assessment Years 2013-14, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer at Rs.2,42,350/-, the same may be confirmed. As regards Asses…

A. VAIRAPRAKASAM,SIVAKASI vs. ACIT, VIRUDHUNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 703/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 703/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 A. Vairaprakasam, The Assistant Commissioner Of 4, Chairamn Shanmugam V. Income Tax, Road, Virudhunagar Circle-1, Sivakasi. Virudhunagar. [Pan: Aajpv-8360-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.01.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…Interest, postage and telegram, telephone, printing & stationery, travelling expenses and bank charges need not be incurred. So the provision of section 14A is not applicable. :-3-: ITA. No: 703/Chny/2022 (60 ITR (Trib)266;56 ITR (Trib) Sn 34,43;383 ITR 529;376 ITR 553 ; 352 ITR 583) 4. Not only the incurring of the expenditure but also its relationship with the exempted income must be clear and must be capable of being ascertained on the fact of it without involving any further mental exercise. The onus is on the assessing officer not only to show that some expenditure was factually incurred but also to show i…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO.LTD.,, BARODA

ITA 1770/AHD/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: 22-04-2022For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR &
Section 115J

…e and, therefore, there was no question of any estimation of expenditure in respect of interest and administrative expenses under rule 8D. Further the Hon’ble Court referred the another decision in the case of Pr. CIT v. India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd. [2015] 376 ITR 553/[2016] 66 taxmann.com 356 wherein it is observed that when the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds out of which concerned investments had been made, disallowance under Section 14A is not justified. Thus we clear in our mind the direction given by the Ld CIT[A] to apply Rule 8D is not proper and there being the surplus funds were invested…

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3