Principal CIT v. Reliance Capital Asset Management Limited (Bombay HC

400 ITR 217High Court2018#4273 most cited

What is Principal CIT v. Reliance Capital Asset Management Limited (Bombay HC authority for?

An Assessing Officer (AO) must specifically record dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim for disallowance under Section 14A before applying Rule 8D for computation. The dissatisfaction of the CIT(A) or ITAT does not automatically make Rule 8D applicable.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd · 400 ITR 217 · Section 14A · Rule 8D · Assessing Officer satisfaction · disallowance · exempt income · Bombay High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 14ASection 10(34)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 208Section 234CSection 250

Issues it is cited on

section 14a(2)disallowance u/s 14adisallowance under section 14asection 14asection 115jsection 115jbsalarysection 115section 11prescribedprevious yearsection 14

Judgments citing Principal CIT v. Reliance Capital Asset Management Limited (Bombay HC

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. PRAJ INDUSTRIES LIMITED , PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2096/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2096/Pun/2025 Assessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Amit BobdeFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Shaparia
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2096/PUN/2025 Assessment Year 2018-19 ACIT, Circle-4, Vs. Praj Industries Limited, Pune Praj Tower, S.No.274 and 275/2, Bhumkar Chowk, Hinjewadi, Pune 411057, Maharashtra PAN : AAACP6090Q Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Amit Bobde Respondent by : Shri Paresh Shaparia Date of hearing : 28.10.2025 Date of pronouncement : 14.11.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of Revenue pert…

TRENT LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4074/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: Shri Rajan Vora and Nikhil Tiwari, CA
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234Section 234CSection 250

…Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay which are listed below: 8 ITA No.4074/MUM/2024 Trent Limited, AY 2017-18 1. Maxopp Investment Limited 402 ITR 640 (SC) 2. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. 394 ITR 449 (SC) 3. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. 400 ITR 217 (Bom) 4. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd 98 taxmann.com 361 (SC), wherein the SLP filed by Department is dismissed 5. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd 113 taxmann.com 303 (Bom) 6. Bajaj Finance Ltd 110 taxmann.com 303 (Bom) 7. JSW Energy Ltd 153 taxmann.com 208 (Bom) 8. Tata Capital Ltd 161 taxmann.com 557 (Bom) 7. Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on th…

PRAJ INDUSTRIES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1413/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…unsatisfactory on examination of accounts, that AO is entitled and authorized to compute deduction under Rule 8D. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. reported in (2018) 400 ITR 217 (Bom.). We are therefore inclined to accept the claim of the Ld. AR that the Ld. AO has not recorded satisfaction as per mandate of law provided under sub-section (2) of section 14A of the Act. Accordingly, the submission of the Ld. DR in this regard is rejected. 8.2 We also do not find any substance in the contention of the Ld. DR that the deta…

NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result ground no.1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and grounds no

ITA 730/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.730 & 731/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18) National Stock Exchange Vs. Dcit, Circle 7(1)(1) Of India Limited Room No. 126, 1 St Floor, Exchange Plaza, Bandra Aaykar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra M.K. Road, East, Mumbai – 400051 Churchgate -400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacn1797L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Jehangir Mistri Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Srinivasu

…come.Therefore, the facts of the case of the assesse are distinguishable from the case of National Securities Clearing Corporation and other cases of H.T MediaLt.v/s PCIT 85 taxmann.com 113( Delhi High Court) and PCIT v/s Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd.400 ITR 217( Bombay High Court) as per copies placed it the paper book filed . After recording the aforesaid dissatisfaction, the AO has asked the assessee as to why not the provision of section 14A read with rule 8D shall not be applied in its case. In response during the course of assessment vide letter dated 12.10.2019 the assessee submitted the breakup o…

FOMENTO KARNATAKA MINING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW AMALGAMATED WITH FOMENTO RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 26/PAN/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji29 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.26/Pan/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Fomento Karnataka Mining Vs. Jcit, Margao Range, Company Private Limited, Margao, Goa. (Now Amalgamated With Fomento Resources Private Limited), 102, 1St Floor, Kamat Metropolis-I, Behind Caculo Mall, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa- 403001. Pan : Aaacf7487K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 27.08.2021 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Processing & Trading In The Iron Ore. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Was Filed On 30.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.26,40,77,220/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao (‘The Assessing Officer’) Vide Order Dated 30.12.2011 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) At A Total Income Of Rs.26,63,57,955/-. While Doing So, The Assessing Officer Made Disallowance U/S 14A Of Rs.15,49,787/-, Disallowance On Account Of Sundry Creditors Extracting As Fictitious Of Rs.7,30,948/-. 3. Being Aggrieved, An Appeal Was Filed Before The Ld. Cit(A) Contending That No Disallowance U/S 14A Is Required To Be Made In The Absence Of Any Expenditure Incurred To Earn The Exempt Income. It Was Also Contended That No Addition On Account Of Outstanding Creditors Is Required To Be Made, As The Credits Represent The Opening

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…tion, the nature of the loan taken by the assessee for purchasing the shares/making the investment in shares is to be examined by the Assessing Officer.” 5 8. Even the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd, 400 ITR 217 (Bom) held as under :- “The AO is not entitled to make any disallowance under Rule 8D if he does not specifically record that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the assessee's claim. The fact that the CIT(A) and ITAT were not satisfied with the assessee's disallowance and enhanced it does not mean that Rule 8D becomes applicable and the…

M/S. SVL LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2113/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2113/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Svl Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Shriram House, 1St Floor, Income Tax, No.4, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Vs. Corporate Circle-6(1), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs-7696-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Chinthapalli Meher Chand, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chinthapalli Meher Chand
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the appellant relies on the following judgments: a. CIT Vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd ( 229 Taxman 143) Delhi HC. b. CIT Vs I P Support Services India P Ltd ( 378 ITR 240) Delhi HC. c. Principal CIT Vs Reliance Capital Asset Management Limited (Bombay HC (400 ITR 217)). SLP against this judgment has been dismissed by the Hon'ble SC. SLP(C) No.11379 of 2018 dated 07.09.2018 ( 259 Taxman 83).” 3. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee during the year under consideration received dividend income of Rs. 1,4…

HSBC SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2403/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Pune28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 10ASection 10BSection 10B(7)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

…action, the nature of the loan taken by the assessee for purchasing the shares/making the investment in shares is to be examined by the Assessing Officer.” 11. Even the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd, 400 ITR 217 (Bom) held as under: “The AO is not entitled to make any disallowance under Rule 8D if he does not specifically record that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the assessee's claim. The fact that the CIT(A) and ITAT were not satisfied with the assessee's disallowance and enhanced it does not mean that Rule 8D becomes applicable and the di…

HSBC SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2402/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Pune28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 10ASection 10BSection 10B(7)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

…action, the nature of the loan taken by the assessee for purchasing the shares/making the investment in shares is to be examined by the Assessing Officer.” 11. Even the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd, 400 ITR 217 (Bom) held as under: “The AO is not entitled to make any disallowance under Rule 8D if he does not specifically record that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the assessee's claim. The fact that the CIT(A) and ITAT were not satisfied with the assessee's disallowance and enhanced it does not mean that Rule 8D becomes applicable and the di…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 323/PUN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 10ASection 14ASection 35Section 35(1)

…tisfaction, the nature of the loan taken by the assessee for purchasing the shares/making the investment in shares is to be examined by the Assessing Officer.” Even the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd, 400 ITR 217 (Bom) held as under: “The AO is not entitled to make any disallowance under Rule 8D if he does not specifically record that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the assessee's claim. The fact that the CIT(A) and ITAT were not satisfied with the assessee's disallowance and enhanced it does not mean that Rule 8D becomes applicable and the di…

KUMAR PROPERTIES AND REAL ESTATE PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

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

ITA 684/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.684/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kumar Properties & Real Vs. Dcit, Circle-14, Pune. Estate Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Kumar Capital, East Street, Camp, Pune-411001. Pan : Aaack7490H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan R. Vora & Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 7, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 23.02.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Promoter & Developer Of The Housing Project. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. Vora &For Respondent: Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.684/PUN/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kumar Properties and Real Vs. DCIT, Circle-14, Pune. Estate Pvt. Ltd., 1st Floor, Kumar Capital, East Street, Camp, Pune-411001. PAN : AAACK7490H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rajan R. Vora & Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue by : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date of hearing : 19.07.2022 Date of pronouncement : 25.08.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by t…

SRIRAM CREDIT COMPANY LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CC 6(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 956/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.956/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Shriram Credit Co. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner- Shriram House, Of Income Tax, 1St Floor, No.4, Corporate Circle-6(1), Burkit Road, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai. [Pan: Aagcs 4497 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.R.Sivaraman, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…to why he was not satisfied about the correctness of the amount disallowed by the appellant u/s.14A of Rs.86,907/-. In this connection, the appellant relies on the following decisions: i. Principal CIT Vs Reliance Capital Asset Management Limited (Bombay HC (400 ITR 217)). SLP against this judgment has been dismissed by the Hon'ble SC. SLP(C) No. 11379 of 2018 dated 07.09.2018 (259 Taxman 83). ii. Marg Limited Vs CIT [2020] 120 Taxmann.com 84 (Madras) iii. CIT Vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (229 Taxman 143) Delhi HC. iv. CIT Vs I.P.Support Services India P Ltd ( 378 ITR 240) Delhi HC. v. ITAT Chennai deci…

SVL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CC 6(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 955/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.955/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Svl Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner- Shriram House, Of Income Tax, 1St Floor, No.4, Corporate Circle-6(2), Burkit Road, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7696 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.R.Sivaraman, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ee as to why he was not satisfied about the correctness of the amount disallowed by the appellant of Rs.1,03,470/-. In this connection, the appellant relied on the following decisions: i) Principal CIT Vs Reliance Capital Asset Management Limited (Bombay HC (400 ITR 217)). SLP against this judgment has been dismissed by the Hon'ble SC. SLP(C) No. 11379 of 2018 dated 07.09.2018 (259 Taxman 83). ii) Marg Limited Vs CIT [2020] 120 Taxmann.com 84 (Madras) iii) CIT Vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (229 Taxman 143) Delhi HC. iv) CIT Vs I.P.Support Services India P Ltd (378 ITR 240) Delhi HC. For these and other g…

SHRIRAM FINANCIAL VENTURES (CHENNAI) PVT. LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCITCC3(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 942/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.941/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Shriram Capital Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner- Shriram House, Of Income Tax, 1St Floor, No.4, Burkit Road, Corporate Circle-6(1), T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aabcs 2726 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr.S.Palani Kumar, CIT /
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…2/Chny/2020 :: 3 :: not satisfied with the correctness of the amount disallowed by the appellant of Rs.10,66,916/-. In this connection, the appellant relies on the following decisions: i. Principal CIT Vs Reliance Capital Asset Management Limited (Bombay HC (400 ITR 217)). SLP against this judgment has been dismissed by the Hon'ble SC. SLP(C) No.11379 of 2018 dated 07.09.2018 (259 Taxman 83). ii. Marg Limited Vs CIT [2020] 120 Taxmann.com 84 (Madras) iii. CIT Vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (229 Taxman 143) Delhi HC. iv. CIT Vs I P Support Services India P Ltd (378 ITR 240) Delhi HC. 8. The CIT(A) erred in n…

SHRIRAM CAPITAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC3(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 941/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.941/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Shriram Capital Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner- Shriram House, Of Income Tax, 1St Floor, No.4, Burkit Road, Corporate Circle-6(1), T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aabcs 2726 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr.S.Palani Kumar, CIT /
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…2/Chny/2020 :: 3 :: not satisfied with the correctness of the amount disallowed by the appellant of Rs.10,66,916/-. In this connection, the appellant relies on the following decisions: i. Principal CIT Vs Reliance Capital Asset Management Limited (Bombay HC (400 ITR 217)). SLP against this judgment has been dismissed by the Hon'ble SC. SLP(C) No.11379 of 2018 dated 07.09.2018 (259 Taxman 83). ii. Marg Limited Vs CIT [2020] 120 Taxmann.com 84 (Madras) iii. CIT Vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (229 Taxman 143) Delhi HC. iv. CIT Vs I P Support Services India P Ltd (378 ITR 240) Delhi HC. 8. The CIT(A) erred in n…

JP MORGAN SERVICES (I) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10 (2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3512/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 3512/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2014-15) J.P.Morgan Services India Private Limited, Level Nos. 9 To 11, Prism Towers, Mindspace, Link Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai – 400 104. Pan: Aabcd-0503-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 10(2)(1), Room No.509, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Porus Kaka Sr. Advocate With Shri & Divesh Chawla ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Satya Pinisetty सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/05/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 28/02/2019, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed Transfer Pricing (Tp) Adjustment & Disallowance Made U/S. 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]. The Relevant Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Appeal Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka Sr. Advocate with Shri and Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pinisetty
Section 14ASection 92C(3)

…disallowance computed by the Assessing Officer is thus, liable to be rejected. To buttress his submissions he placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 402 ITR 640(SC) (ii) PCIT vs. Reliance Capital Assets Management Ltd. 400 ITR 217 (Bom) (iii) PCIT vs. Vedanta Ltd., 261 Taxman 179 (Del) (iv) PCIT vs. Bajaj Finance Ltd., 110 taxamann.com 303 (Bom) (v) PCIT vs. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. 113 taxmann.com 303 (Bom) 5. Au contraire, Shri Satya Pinisetty representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. The ld. D…

DCIT 7 (2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S NSE CLEARING LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS NATIONAL SECURITIES CLEARING CORPORATION LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections by assessee are allowed

ITA 6726/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 6726/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2010-11 ) आअसं. 6727/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2011-12 ) Dcit-7(2)(2), Room No.126-B, First Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Nse Clearing Ltd. (Formerly Known As National Securities Clearing Corporation Ltd.), G-Block Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan:Aaacn2642L ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.P.R.R MurthyFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Chouhan
Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 4

…14A of the Act. 5 ITA NO.6727/MUM/2019(A.Y.2011-12) C.O.NO.49& 50/MUM/2021 To further buttress his submissions the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on following decisions: (i) PCIT vs. Reliance Capital Assert Management Ltd, 400 ITR 217 (Bom) (ii)HT Media Ltd. vs.PCIT, 399 ITR 576(Del) (iii)The Suvarna Nagari Patsanstha Ltd. vs. ITO[ITA No.520/PN/2014] (iv)Tata Lockheed Marti Aerostructures Ltd. vs. DCIT1(3),Mumbai {ITA No.2837/Mum/2018] 5. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee vehemently supported the findings of CIT(A) in rejecting the manner of recording dissat…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA CAPITAL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 60/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…support to his submissions also placed reliance on the following decisions: - i. Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [402 ITR 640 (SC)] ii. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing company Ltd. v. DCIT [394 ITR 449 (SC)] iii. PCIT v. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd., [400 ITR 217 (Bom)] iv. H.T. Media Ltd., v. PCIT [399 ITR 576 (Del.)] 8. With regard to the additional ground No.2 of grounds of appeal i.e., in respect of deduction of education cess on income tax and secondary and higher education cess on Income-tax, Learned Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA CAPITAL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 59/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…support to his submissions also placed reliance on the following decisions: - i. Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [402 ITR 640 (SC)] ii. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing company Ltd. v. DCIT [394 ITR 449 (SC)] iii. PCIT v. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd., [400 ITR 217 (Bom)] iv. H.T. Media Ltd., v. PCIT [399 ITR 576 (Del.)] 8. With regard to the additional ground No.2 of grounds of appeal i.e., in respect of deduction of education cess on income tax and secondary and higher education cess on Income-tax, Learned Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court…

TATA CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 7059/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…support to his submissions also placed reliance on the following decisions: - i. Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [402 ITR 640 (SC)] ii. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing company Ltd. v. DCIT [394 ITR 449 (SC)] iii. PCIT v. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd., [400 ITR 217 (Bom)] iv. H.T. Media Ltd., v. PCIT [399 ITR 576 (Del.)] 8. With regard to the additional ground No.2 of grounds of appeal i.e., in respect of deduction of education cess on income tax and secondary and higher education cess on Income-tax, Learned Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court…

TATA CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 7058/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…support to his submissions also placed reliance on the following decisions: - i. Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [402 ITR 640 (SC)] ii. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing company Ltd. v. DCIT [394 ITR 449 (SC)] iii. PCIT v. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd., [400 ITR 217 (Bom)] iv. H.T. Media Ltd., v. PCIT [399 ITR 576 (Del.)] 8. With regard to the additional ground No.2 of grounds of appeal i.e., in respect of deduction of education cess on income tax and secondary and higher education cess on Income-tax, Learned Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court…

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2