Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

77 Taxmann.com 257High Court2017#201 most cited

What is Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT authority for?

No disallowance under Section 14A can be made in the absence of actual exempt income, as Section 14A relates to the earning of actual income, not notional or anticipated income, thereby declining to apply the CBDT Circular dated 11th May 2014 in such cases.

370

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT · Section 14A disallowance · absence of exempt income · actual income · notional income · CBDT Circular 11 May 2014 · expenditure for exempt income · Madras High Court · 392 ITR 633 · 77 taxmann.com 257

Also reported as

392 ITR 633

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 115JBSection 8DSection 250Section 35ADSection 35AD(7B)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

strategic investmentdisallowance of interest expendituredisallowance u/s 14adisallowance under section 14asection 14amercantile system of accountingsection 32section 9(1)commercial expediencysection 43section 43bsection 37

Judgments citing Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Guntur vs. Nsl Textiles Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 349/VIZ/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S. Nsl Textiles Ltd., Nsl Icon, 4Th Floor, D.No. Guntur. 8-2-684/2/A, Banjara Hills, Road No. 12, Hyderabad. Pan No. Aabcj 1299 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Appala Raju – Sr.DR
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT, Circle-2(1), vs. M/s. NSL Textiles Ltd., NSL Icon, 4th Floor, D.No. Guntur. 8-2-684/2/A, Banjara Hills, Road No. 12, Hyderabad. PAN No. AABCJ 1299 A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 128/VIZ/2018 (Arising out of ITA No. 349/VIZ/2018) (Asst. Year : 2010-11) M/s. NSL Textiles Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), NSL Icon, 4th Floor, D.No. Guntur. 8-2-684/2/A, Banjara Hills, Road No. 12, Hyderabad. PAN No. AABCJ 1299 A (Applicant) (Respondent) A…

Visual Graphics Computing Services India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for

ITA 3205/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 3205/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 Visual Graphics Computing Services Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (India) Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(2), 10Th Floor, “Zenith”, Chennai – 600 034. Ascendas - International Tech Park, Csir, Taramani Link Road, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacv 3342H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Nishant Thakkar, Advocate &
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…d by the Ld. AR is with regard to the disallowance made u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has not earned any exempt income and as per jurisdictional High Court decisions in the cases of Redington (India) Ltd vs ACIT (392 ITR 633) (Mad) and CIT vs Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd., (248 Taxman 55) (Mad), no disallowance could be made 14A r.w.r. 8D. :-7-: 9. We heard the rival submissions. Since, the facts are not clear from the assessment order or from the order of the DRP as to whether the assessee has admitted any exempt income or not, this issue is remitted back to the…

JCIT (OSD), Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1795/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, (Osd), Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034 Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri.Homi Rajvangh, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’ ए ’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [PAN: AAACS 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "न…

JCIT (OSD), Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1794/CHNY/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, (Osd), Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034 Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri.Homi Rajvangh, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’ ए ’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [PAN: AAACS 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "न…

JCIT (OSD), Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1793/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, (Osd), Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034 Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri.Homi Rajvangh, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’ ए ’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [PAN: AAACS 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "न…

Computer Age Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu 2, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the assessment years are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1142/CHNY/2018[214-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2018

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1140, 1141 & 1142/Chny/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Computer Age Management Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Services Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, Rayala Towers, 3Rd Floor, Ltu-2, 158, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 002. [Pan Aaacc 3035G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, R. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh
Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1140, 1141 & 1142/CHNY/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Computer Age Management Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Services Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, Rayala Towers, 3rd floor, LTU-2, 158, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 002. [PAN AAACC 3035G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर…

Computer Age Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu 2, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the assessment years are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1140/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1140, 1141 & 1142/Chny/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Computer Age Management Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Services Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, Rayala Towers, 3Rd Floor, Ltu-2, 158, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 002. [Pan Aaacc 3035G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, R. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh
Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1140, 1141 & 1142/CHNY/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Computer Age Management Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Services Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, Rayala Towers, 3rd floor, LTU-2, 158, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 002. [PAN AAACC 3035G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1473/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.S.P. Babu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, CIT
Section 145

…tent of exempt income. By relying upon various decision of the Tribunal as well as Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chem Invest v. CIT 378 ITR 33 including the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 392 ITR 633, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. We find that in a recent judgement in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT in Civil Appeal Nos. 104-109 of 2015 dated 12.02.2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also confirmed the view of restricting the disal…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1472/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.S.P. Babu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, CIT
Section 145

…tent of exempt income. By relying upon various decision of the Tribunal as well as Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chem Invest v. CIT 378 ITR 33 including the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 392 ITR 633, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. We find that in a recent judgement in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT in Civil Appeal Nos. 104-109 of 2015 dated 12.02.2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also confirmed the view of restricting the disal…

M/S Fullerton India Credit Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1085/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.S.P. Babu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, CIT
Section 145

…tent of exempt income. By relying upon various decision of the Tribunal as well as Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chem Invest v. CIT 378 ITR 33 including the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 392 ITR 633, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. We find that in a recent judgement in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT in Civil Appeal Nos. 104-109 of 2015 dated 12.02.2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also confirmed the view of restricting the disal…

M/S Fullerton India Credit Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1084/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.S.P. Babu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, CIT
Section 145

…tent of exempt income. By relying upon various decision of the Tribunal as well as Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chem Invest v. CIT 378 ITR 33 including the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 392 ITR 633, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. We find that in a recent judgement in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT in Civil Appeal Nos. 104-109 of 2015 dated 12.02.2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also confirmed the view of restricting the disal…

M/S Fullerton India Credit Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1083/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.S.P. Babu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, CIT
Section 145

…tent of exempt income. By relying upon various decision of the Tribunal as well as Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chem Invest v. CIT 378 ITR 33 including the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 392 ITR 633, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. We find that in a recent judgement in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT in Civil Appeal Nos. 104-109 of 2015 dated 12.02.2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also confirmed the view of restricting the disal…

Avinash Bhosale Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 986/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 985 & 986/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…has been earned by the assessee in the relevant assessment year, no disallowance u/s.14A is to be made. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Redington (India) Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 392 ITR 633 and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Corrtech Energy P. Ltd. reported as 372 ITR 97. Thus, in view of unrebutted facts and in the light of judgments mentioned above, we are of considered view that no disallowance under Rule 8D is called for in the impugned assessment years. Accordingly, the impugned o…

M/S, Acn Infotech (India) Pvtl Ltd., Visakhapatnam vs. The CIT (A), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.79/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2012-2013) M/S Acn Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1) D.No.9-14-3A, Visakhapatnam Balaji’S Mangalagiri Chambers Vip Road Visakhapatnam [Pan:Aafca7810A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2018 28.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 1Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर ससह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.79/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2012-2013) M/s ACN Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1) D.No.9-14-3A, Visakhapatnam Balaji’s Mangalagiri Chambers VIP Road Visakhapatnam [PAN:AAFCA7810A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR…

ACIT, C-6, Ludhiana vs. Majestic Hotels Ltd., Ludhiana

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 171/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Jagdeep Goel, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Khera, CA
Section 14ASection 250

…5 A.Y.2012-13 income “includable” in total income was not acceptable. Our attention was drawn to the relevant findings of the CIT(A) at paras 4.7 and 4.8 as under: “4.7 Recently the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Redington (India) Ltd. [2017] 392 ITR 633 expressed its inability to subscribe to the view expressed vide the aforesaid circular of the CBDT. Elaborating on the disapproval of the circular, it was stated that the provisions of section 14A were inserted as a response to the judgments of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 452 and Rajasthan State Warehou…

ACIT Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai vs. Shriram Fortune Solutions Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2050/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.Clement RameshKumarFor Respondent: Mr.Ragha Rajeev Menon
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहमपी.जॉज", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2050/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2014-15 Vs. M/s Shriram Fortune Solutions The Dy. Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax No.66, II Floor, Corporate Circle 6(1) City Centre Complex Chennai-34. Thirumalai Pillai Road T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017 [PAN AAACS 7708 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by…

M/S Viki Industreis Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 3 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 1680/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1680/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Lalmalsawma Pachuau, JCIT
Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1680/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s VIKI Industries Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner of No.1, Krishna Street, v. Income Tax, Nungambakkam, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. PAN : AAACV 2003 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""य…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…)"' • CIT v. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd.: 372 ITR 97 (Guj.) • • CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd.: 319 ITR 204 (P&H) • CIT v. M/s Lakhani Marketing: 272 CTR 265 (P&H) • CIT v. M/s. Shivam Motors (P) Ltd.: 272 CTR 277 (All) • Redington (India) Ltd vs. ACIT: 392 ITR 633 (Mad.) • SInterglobe Enterprises v. DCIT: ITA No.1362 & 1032/Del./2013 (Del. Trib.) - affirmed by Delhi High Court in ITA No.456 of 2016 • DCIT v. Morgan Stanley India Securities Pvt. Ltd. : ITA No. 114/Mum/2013 • (Mum.) VS ACIT v. M. Baskaran: 152 ITD 844 (Chn. Trib.) Specific reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Kolkata Be…

DCIT, Central Circle - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Rohit Ferro Tech Ltd., Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 263/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 144C(3)

…- made in the course of assessment as reverse in the CIT(A)’s order. Suffice to say, the assessee has not derived any exempt income in the impugned assessment year. The CIT(A) has followed hon’ble Madras high court’s decision in Redington (India) Ltd. vs ACIT 392 ITR 633 (Madras) that the impugned disallowance provision does not apply in the absence of exempt income. hon’ble jurisdictional high court has also decided the very issue in assessee’s favor in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Ashika Global Securities Ltd ITAT 100 of 2014/GA 2122 of 2014.The Revenue fails in its latter appeal ITA 263/K/2018…

DCIT, Central Circle - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Rohit Ferro Tech Ltd., Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 262/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 144C(3)

…- made in the course of assessment as reverse in the CIT(A)’s order. Suffice to say, the assessee has not derived any exempt income in the impugned assessment year. The CIT(A) has followed hon’ble Madras high court’s decision in Redington (India) Ltd. vs ACIT 392 ITR 633 (Madras) that the impugned disallowance provision does not apply in the absence of exempt income. hon’ble jurisdictional high court has also decided the very issue in assessee’s favor in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Ashika Global Securities Ltd ITAT 100 of 2014/GA 2122 of 2014.The Revenue fails in its latter appeal ITA 263/K/2018…