PTC India Ltd. v. DCIT: ITA Nos. 580 and 581 (Del) 2009 (Del)

ITO 7(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. PRABHADEVI PROPERTIES & TRADING COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 7(3)(4) V. M/S. Prabhadevi Properties & Trading Company Ltd., Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, Room No. 805 “The Peregrine” 400 Pratishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacp4718R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Atul Suraiya Department By : Shri Jagdish Jangid

…th rule 8D of the Rules, holding the applicability of these provisions to be almost automatic. Such an action has been repeatedly struck down by various superior judicial authorities. For instance, in its decision in the case of Auchtel Products Ltd. v. ACIT (52 SOT 39), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal had held that before invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules, the AO is obliged the examine the non-disallowance / voluntary disallowance made by the appellant. In the instant case, no expenditure has been linked to the earning of the exempt income by either the appellant or…

RAVI MOHAN GEHI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6238/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit Cen Cir 40, Ravi Mohan Gehi, Piramal Chambers B/6, Navkar Chambers, बिधम/ Mumbai Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Pin- Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aeppg1674M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Pradip Kanasi, Ar By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Michael, Dr Virtual Date Of Hearing 29.07.2020 : Date Of Pronouncement 16.09.2020 :

…t rendered any opinion on correctness of assessee's claim of not spending any amount for earning exempt income, he cannot propose to make disallowance by applying rule 8D of 1962 Rules as supported by the following decisions. a) Auchtel Products Private Ltd., 52 SOT 39 (Mumbai) b) Raj Shipping Agencies Ltd. 38 taxmann.com 345 (Mumbai) c) Shriram Properties (P.) Ltd. 60 SOT 75 (Chennai) (TIRO) d) Maxopp Inv.Ltd 347 1TR 272 (Delhi) 15 I.T.A. No. 6238/Mum/2016 Ravi Mohan Gehi vi. Even where the satisfaction is recorded, the satisfaction should be with respect to the books of accounts. It is significant to note that…

DAMANI SHIPPING PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2438/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SH. R. C. SHARMA, AM & HON’BLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2438/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) DCIT 2(1)(1), M/s Damani Shipping Pvt. Room No. 344, Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 205-06, Varma Chambers, 11, Homji Street, 2nd Floor, Road, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACD5533A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Pankaj R. Toprani प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 07/08/2018 Dat…

DCIT -1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. TATA LOCKHEED MARTINAEROSTRUCTURES LTD., HYDERABAD

In the result , appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

…ee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act." Further the Mumbai Tribunal has also in the case of M/s Auchtel Products Ltd. (2012) 52 SOT 39 has held that no disallowance can be made by the AO without recording a satisfaction that the explanation given by the assessee is not proper. The operative para is reproduced below. “ 15. A bare perusal of the above provisions indicates that the AO shall determine the amount disallowable as per Rule 8D, if he, "is not satisfied with the correctnes…

ACIT CIR 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. KREDENCE MULTI TRADING CO., MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, M/S Kredence Multi Trading Circle-6(3)(2), Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.522, 5Th Floor, 530, Nevvyapar Bhavan, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, P. Demello Road, Mumbai-400020 Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-40009 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaacs0778A

…x (Appeal), 4 Kredence Multi Trading Ltd. the factual matrix was considered and following various decisions in CIT vs SBI DHFL Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 296 (Bom.), ACIT vs Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 155 ITD 1171 and Auchtel Products Ltd. vs ACIT (2012) 52 SOT 39 (URO) and various other decisions, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) restricted the disallowance to the exempt income. No interest bearing funds were utilized for the purposes of investment. Considering the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal, we are in agreement with the finding of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) that disa…

TATA LOKHEED MARTIN AEROSTRUCTURES LTD.,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT - 1(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2144/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2144/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) DCIT 1(3), Tata Lokheed Martin Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Aerostructures Ltd. Road, Mumbai-400020 Survey No. 64, Unit No. 1, बिधम/ Building No. 9, 6th floor, Vs. Raheja Mindspace, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Pin 500081 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. AADCT5968N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Ms. Aarati Visanji प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. M. V. Rajguru सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 22/11/2017 Date…

BRICS GILT FINANCE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.1157/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Brics Gilt Finance Private बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax 1(2) Vs. 4Th Floor, Sadhna House, Room No.537, 570 P.B.Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Behind Mahindra Towers, New Marine Lines, Worli, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400018 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj8885B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" /Respondent)

…t Services India (P.) Ltd.(378 ITR 240)(Del. HC) 3. Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (203 Taxmann 364)(Del HC) 4. CIT Vs. REI Agro Ltd. (ITAT No.161 of 2013)(Cal. HC) 5. Graviss Hospitality Ltd. Vs. DCIT (67 SOT 184)(Mum.Trib) 6. Auchtel Products Ltd. Vs. ACIT (52 SOT 39) (Mum. Trib) 7. DCIT Vs. Jindal Photo Limited and vice versa (ITA No.814 (Del) 2011 and CO 91 (Del) 2011) 8. Allahabad Bank Vs. ACIT (ITA No.1199/Kol/2012)(Kol.Trib). A.Y. 2010-11 The AO must record his dissatisfaction as regards the correctness of the working of suo moto disallowance u/s.14A of the Act before applying Rule 8D of the Rules:- 1. Gr…

ITO 10(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. JPA SOLUTIONS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12 Income Tax Officer-10(2)(1), M/S Jpa Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Room No.408, 4Th Floor, 102, Man Gouse, S.V. Road, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Vile Parle (West), Vs. M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400056 Mumbai-400020 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aabcj7151K

…n be relied upon:- • CIT v. Hero Management Service Ltd. [2014J 360 ITR 68 (Del.)(HC) • Kodak India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT[2013] 155 TTJ 697 (Mum.)(Trib.) • JK Investors (Bombay) Limited (Mum.) (Trib.) (www.itatonline.org) • Auchtel Products Limited v. ACIT[2012J 52 SOT 39 (Mum.) (Trib.) • Priya Exhibitors Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2012] 54 SOT 356 (Del.) (Trib.) • DCIT v. REI Agro Ltd. (Kol.)(Trib.) • ACIT v. Iqbal M. Chagla (Mum.) (Trib.) I find that the disallowance was mechanically made by the Assessing Officer because as per the provisions of section 14A, the Assessing Officer is expected to re-compute the amount of di…