Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27/58 ITR 313/154 DTR 241/188 TTJ 1 (SB) (Delhi)(Trib.) Dy. CIT v. Diamond Co. Ltd.

162 ITD 131Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2017#23034 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2023.

Judgments citing Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27/58 ITR 313/154 DTR 241/188 TTJ 1 (SB) (Delhi)(Trib.) Dy. CIT v. Diamond Co. Ltd.

M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

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

ITA 394/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Bharat Electronics The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Registered Office, Income Tax, Outer Ring Road Ltu, Nagawara, Circle – 1, Vs. Bangalore – 560 045. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacb5985C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Richa .B, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 43A

…69 ITR 37(SN.) (Delhi) (Trib.)  ACIT v. Paras Buildtech (India) (P.) Ltd. (2018)62 ITR 284 (Delhi) (Trib.)  ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 / 58 ITR 313 / 154 DTR 241 / 188 TTJ 1 (SB) (Delhi) (Trib.)  Dy.CIT v. Diamond Co. Ltd. (2017) 162 ITD 131 (Kol.) (Trib.)  Yashoda Health Care Services P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 54 ITR 26 (Hyd.) (Trib.)  Electrosteel Castings Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 53 ITR 5 (Kol.) (Trib.) 7. While calculating the disallowance under section 14A, only the investments that have generated exempt income should be taken into consideration. In other words, if an investment has n…

SAMCO SECURITIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) NFAC, DELHI

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

ITA 1328/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhsamco Securities Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Appeal A/1004, Naman Midtown, Centre (Nfac) Senapati Bapat Road, Prabhadevi Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics2455A Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ram Krishna Kedia Date Of Hearing 06.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.02.2023 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Disallowance U/S. 14A Of Rs. 1,51,214/- Made By The Ld Ao, Without Appreciating Facts, Submissions & Evidences In Proper Perspective & Without Assigning Any Proper Reasons 2. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Which Is Bad In Law & Violating The Principle Of Natural Justice As Ld Cit(A) Passed Order Without Giving Opportunity Of Virtual Online Hearing & Also Without Disposing Ground No. 3 Of Appeal Regarding "Assessment Order Contrary To The Principle Of Natural Justice".

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ram Krishna Kedia

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

…CB India Ltd. Vs. ACIT, [2015] 62 taxmann.com 71 (Delhi) PTC India Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 69 ITR 37(SN.) (Delhi) (Trib.) ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27/58 ITR 313/154 DTR 241/188 TTJ 1 (SB) (Delhi)(Trib.) Dy. CIT v. Diamond Co. Ltd. (2017) 162 ITD 131 (Kol.) (Trib.) Yashoda Health Care Services P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 54 ITR 26 (Hyd.) (Trib.)” 6. We consider that the AO has not decided the alternative claim of the assessee. To compute the exempt income after taking into consideration the investment on which the exempt income earned instead of average of total investment. This fact required to b…

SHRIRAM RETAIL HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1252/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D.V. Subba Rao (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…in overlooking the Karnataka High court decision in the case of CIT Vs BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd (312 ITR 63) and Delhi High court decision in the case of CIT Vs Chand Ratan Bagri (230 ITR 258) and ITAT Kolkata decision in the case of DCIT Vs Diamond Company Ltd (162 ITD 131) 12. For these and other grounds that may be adduced before or at the time of hearing the ITAT may be pleased to i. delete the disallowance made u/s.14A r.w Rule 8D ii. delete the disallowance of Short Term Capital Loss of Rs.14,00,00,000/- As evident, the assessee is aggrieved by disallowance u/s. 14A as well as by the fact that Short-term Capit…