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

400 ITR 217High Court2018#4213 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 366,339 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

Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1250/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234D

…appellant relies on the following decisions. i. CIT Vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (229 Taxman 143) Delhi HC ii. CIT Vs I P Support Services India P Ltd (378 ITR 240) Delhi HC. iii. 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). 5. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the investments in subsidiary companies and associate companies were made as a matter of commercial expediency and not with intention of earning exempt income. 6 Witho…

Jayant R. Pardiwala, Mumbai vs. ACIT 31(2), Mumbai

In the result the grounds of

ITA 270/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri S Rifaur Rahman (Am) Shri Jayant R Pardiwala Vs Acit-24(1), 218, High Tech Industrial Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Centre, Caves Road, Bandra, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400050 060 Pan : Aaapp4718N Appellant Respondednt

Section 14A

…) held that in absence of recording the aforesaid fact of non-satisfaction in terms of section 14(2) of the Act, invocation of Rule8D is not permissible. Further reliance was placed on the following judgments:-  PCIT v. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd 400 ITR 217 (Bom)(HC),  Pr CIT v/s. Radha Madhav Invst Ltd ITA No. 934/2016 dt 21/1/19,  Dy_CIT v/s. Anil Printers Ltd ITA no 645/M/2017 dt 30/11/2018 ITA 270/Mum/2018 Jayant R Pardiwala (AY 2013-14) 9. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue supported the orders of authorities below. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee has not made any s…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 781/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…cer, whereas the Ld.AR submitted that where there is no be made. For this proposition, he relied upon the following judgements:- 1. Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd 394 ITR 449 (SC) 2. Maxopp Investment Ltd 402 ITR 640 (SC) 3. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd 400 ITR 217 (SC) 4. Anshul Speciality Molecules Ltd ITA No.4436/M/16 5. G.K.K. Capital Market (P) Ltd ITA No.805/Kol/2012 6. Taurian Engineering P Ltd ITA No.7239/Mum/2016 7. Ashok M Wadhwa ITA No.1871 & 2576/Mum/2012 8. Wadhwa Residency (P) Ltd 95 Taxmannn.com294 (Mum) 9. Integrated Coal Mining Ltd vs DCIT 67 Taxmnn.com 260 10. DCIT vs Rare Enterprises ITA…

ACIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Arshiya Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the ground of appeal raised by the

ITA 3951/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhacit, Cc-6(4), M/S Arshiya Ltd. Room No. 32(1), Ground 308, Level 3, Ceejay House, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, F Block, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent Dcit Cc-6(4), M/S Arshiya International Ltd. Room No. 32(1), Ground 7Th Floor, Twin Arcade, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, C Wing, Military Road, M.K. Road, Marol Maroshi, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. [Formerly Dcit Cc-6(4), Known As Arshiya International Room No. 32(1), Ground Vs. Ltd.] 3021, Ceejay House, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Level-3, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, F-Block, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai-400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. [Formerly Dcit Cc-6(4), Known As Arshiya International Room No. 32(1), Ground Vs. Ltd.] 3021, Ceejay House, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Level-3, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, F-Block, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai-400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018. M/S Arshiya International Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Mukundraj Chare
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

…d. AR submits that the assessee has sufficient own fund out of which investment have been made, hence no disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D should be made. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble (400 ITR 217), CIT vs. Reliance Utility (313 ITR 340), Hon’ble Supreme Court in PCIT vs. Sintex Industrial Ltd. (255 Taxman 171) and decision of Tribunal in Macrotech Construction (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (176 ITD 530). M/s Arshiya International Ltd. 24. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of Assessing Officer on disallowance under…

Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT., Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2390/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2390/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 D.C.I.T, Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Gandhinagar Circle, Vs. 6Th Floor, Block No.11, Gandhinagar Udyog Bhavan, Sector 11, Gandhinagar-382011. Pan: Aaacg5304Q आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2319/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012

Section 115J

…e with any cogent reasons amounting to Rs.11,83,509/- against the exempted income. 30.5 In this regard we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of PCIT vs Reliance Capital Asset Management Limited reported in 400 ITR 217 wherein it was held as under: “19. The Assessing Officer did not specifically record that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of the expenditure in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. However, he felt obliged and going by the presence of Rule 8D that once…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bennett Property Holding Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6911/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Dy. Commisioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Bennett Property Tax-1(1)(1), Holding Co. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Times Tower, Room No.579, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road Kamala Mills Compound, Mumbai – 400 020 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel (W) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaecb3780H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 391

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM Dy. Commisioner of Income Vs. M/s. Bennett Property Tax-1(1)(1), Holding Co. Ltd., 5th Floor, Times Tower, Room No.579, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road Kamala Mills Compound, Mumbai – 400 020 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel (W) Mumbai – 400 013 PAN/GIR No.AAECB3780H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Mohammed Rizwan Assessee by Shri V. Mohan Date of Hearing 24/01/2019 Date of Pronouncement 30/01/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This is an appeal filed by Revenue directed against the o…

Maharashtra Scooters Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1322/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…anically applying the provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules, 1962, is not sustainable universally. Referring to the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. reported in 400 ITR 217 (Bombay), Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the formula envisaged in the said rule need not be followed universally in all cases. He also mentioned that in certain cases the formala need not be applied. Bringing our attention to the contents of Para No.22 of the said judgment, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that making adhoc…

Maharashtra Scooters Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1321/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…anically applying the provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules, 1962, is not sustainable universally. Referring to the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. reported in 400 ITR 217 (Bombay), Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the formula envisaged in the said rule need not be followed universally in all cases. He also mentioned that in certain cases the formala need not be applied. Bringing our attention to the contents of Para No.22 of the said judgment, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that making adhoc…