REI Agro Ltd. v. DCIT

144 ITD 141Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#221 most cited

What is REI Agro Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D applies only to investments that have yielded exempt income in the year under consideration.

346

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

REI Agro Ltd v DCIT · Section 14A disallowance · Rule 8D · exempt income · dividend yielding investments · non-yielding investments · expenditure disallowance · Rule 8D application · Section 115JB · exempt income computation

Also reported as

35 Taxmann.com 404160 TTJ 107144 ITR 141

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 115JBSection 250Section 143(3)Section 8DSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

disallowance under section 14adisallowance u/s 14asection 14asection 10previous yearcompanysection 14indiatotal incomepersonbusinessinterest

Judgments citing REI Agro Ltd. v. DCIT

JCIT (OSD), Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Imc Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1150/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1150/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Jcit(Osd),Cir-11(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Imc Ltd. [Pan: Aaaci 6884 R] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1239/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Imc Ltd. -Vs- Jcit(Osd),Cir-11(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaaci 6884 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri P. Jhunjhunwala, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…ng and closing balance of investments. It was pleaded that only dividend bearing investments ought to have been taken by the ld. AO in any case by following the ratio laid down in the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of REI Agro Ltd. reported in 144 ITD 141. The Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the order of his predecessor in assessee’s own case for 2 M/s IMC Ltd. A.Yr.2008-09 the assessment year 2010-11 wherein disallowance under Rule 8D was made only under Third limb thereon by applying 0.5% of the average value of investments which yielded dividend income. The Ld. CIT(A) following the said order dir…

ITO, WD-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Emami Realty Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 956/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: "ी पी.एम .जगताप, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 36(1)(iii)

…d therefore, we direct both these amounts should be excluded while 8D(2)(iii) investment is computed. 9. Coming back to computation of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. This Tribunal has consistently followed the dictum of law laid down in REI Agro Ltd. Vs. DCIT 144 ITD 141 in which the Tribunal held that only investment which has given rise to the exempted income should be taken into consideration while computing disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D. This order has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 23.12.2013. Respectfully following the same, we direct the AO to re-compute the disallowanc…

ACIT, Circle-34, Kolkata vs. M/S Banwarilall Pasari, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 2115/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2114 & 2115/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Acit Cir 34..............................………………………...........................................................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 7Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 107. M/S. Banwarilall Pasari………………………………………………...............................Respondent 16, India Exchange Place, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aacfb 7611 A] Appearances By: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri S. Jhajharia, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 15, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 14, 2018 Order

…he case of ACIT vs. Champion Commercial Co. 139 ITD 108 (Cal). (c) The appellant also relied upon the judgment of the jurisdiction High Court which had affirmed the judgment of the Jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of REI Agro Industries Ltd. vs DCIT (2013) 144 ITD 141 in which had not earned any exempt income has to be kept out of the ambit of computation of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. Thereby, the average 8 I.T.A. No. 2114 & 2115/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s. Banwarilal Pasari investment of the purpose of calculating disallowance under Rule 8D comes to Rs. 5,91,13,039/-. A…

ACIT, Circle-34, Kolkata vs. M/S Banwarilall Pasari, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 2114/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2114 & 2115/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Acit Cir 34..............................………………………...........................................................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 7Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 107. M/S. Banwarilall Pasari………………………………………………...............................Respondent 16, India Exchange Place, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aacfb 7611 A] Appearances By: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri S. Jhajharia, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 15, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 14, 2018 Order

…he case of ACIT vs. Champion Commercial Co. 139 ITD 108 (Cal). (c) The appellant also relied upon the judgment of the jurisdiction High Court which had affirmed the judgment of the Jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of REI Agro Industries Ltd. vs DCIT (2013) 144 ITD 141 in which had not earned any exempt income has to be kept out of the ambit of computation of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. Thereby, the average 8 I.T.A. No. 2114 & 2115/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s. Banwarilal Pasari investment of the purpose of calculating disallowance under Rule 8D comes to Rs. 5,91,13,039/-. A…

JCIT, (OSD), Cir-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Apex Enterprises (India) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1187/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1187/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Jcit(Osd), Circle-4(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Apex Enterprise (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aadca 7387 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…rked out the disallowance by considering the rule 8D and by considering all the investments which yielded dividend income, in line with the decision of this Tribunal in the case of REI 2 3 M/s Apex Enterprise(India) Ltd. A.Yr.2009-10 Agro Limited reported in 144 ITD 141. Accordingly, ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 6. The next ground to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made towards write back of provision for doubtful debts of Rs. 65,60,963/- both from computation of income under normal provisions of the Act as well as u/s 115JB of…

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Dalmia Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1369/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1369/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle- 12(1), Kolkata. -Vs- M/S Dalmia Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcd 1813 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Ashim Chowdhury, ACA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 94(7)

…me alone could be taken into account for the purpose of working out disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. In support of this proposition, it placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of REI Agro Limited reported in 144 ITD 141. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire addition made in the sum of Rs. 64,18,332/- u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules by observing that the ld. AO had not recorded proper satisfaction for invoking the provision of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(1) of the Rules that the amount of claim for expenses incurred by the assessee…

ITO, WD-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Kaniksha Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 927/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 927/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CITFor Respondent: None
Section 14A

…D 33 (Delhi) wherein it was held that there can be no disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the Act, if there is no exempt income during the relevant previous year. It was brought to our notice that the Hon’ble ITAT Kolkata in the case of REI Agro Ltd. Vs. DCIT 144 ITD 141 (Kol-Trib) has held that it is only the investments which yields ITA No.927/Kol/2016 M/s. Kanishka Merchants (P)LTd A.Y.2012-13 2 dividend during the previous year that has to be considered while adopting the average value of investments for the purpose of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. The aforesaid view of the Tribunal has since been affirmed…

ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Amricon Agrovat Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2300/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon'Ble Sri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Central Circle-2(1) -Vs- M/S. Amricon Agrovat (P).Ltd., Kolkata Kolkata (Pan Aadca 1610 Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri.S.Dasgupta Addl.Cit Dr For The Respondent: Shri D.S.Damle, Fca Date Of Hearing : 15.2.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018. Order Per Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 27.9.2016 Of Cit(A)-20, Kolkata, Relating To Ay 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue In This Reads As Follows: “(I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Accepting That The Term 'Manufacture' Occurring In The Context Of Section 80-Ib Does Not Necessarily Require That The End Product Of The Manufacturing Process Is To Be Completely Different From The Ingredients, As Regards Its Chemical Composition, Integral Structure Or Its Use. (Ii) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Accepting That The Process Of Manufacturing Of Poultry Feeds Does Not Amount To Mere Mixing Together Of All Different Ingredients, Without Involving Any Change In The Chemical Composition Of The Ingredients. (Iii) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Accepting That The Process Of Preparation Of Poultry Feeds Amount To Production Of An Article Within The Meaning Of Section 80Ib. (Iv) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Entire Amount Of Rs.1,12,50,626/- Claimed As Deduction U/S 80-Ib.

For Appellant: Shri.S.Dasgupta Addl.CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri D.S.Damle, FCA
Section 14ASection 80Section 801B(4)Section 80I

…ITA No.2300/Kol/2016 M/s. Amricon Agrovat Pvt.Ltd. A.Y.2013-14 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH "B", KOLKATA [Before Hon'ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Hon'ble Sri Waseem Ahmed, AM] Assessment Year : 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Central Circle-2(1) -vs- M/s. Amricon Agrovat (P).Ltd., Kolkata Kolkata (PAN AADCA 1610 Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant: Shri.S.Dasgupta Addl.CIT DR For the Respondent: Shri D.S.Damle, FCA Date of Hearing : 15.2.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018. ORDER Per Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against order dated 27.9.2016 of CIT(A)-20, Kolkata,…

M/S. Pratap Polysacks Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1527/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1527/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Pratap Polysacks Limited -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Circle-5(1) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 6949 J] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar For The Respondent : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.05.2016 Of C.I.T.(A)-2, Kolkata Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. Ground Nos. 1, 6 & 7 Are General In Nature & Call For No Specific Adjudication. 3. Ground No.2 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows :- “2. For That The Ld. C.I.T(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.13,40,961/- Out Of Claim Of Depreciation & Additional Depreciation S= Electric Installations Being Integral Part Of Plant & Machinery & Wrongly Considered By The Ao As Electric Installations Simplicitor.” 4. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Hdpe/Pp Woven Socks & Aluminium Composite Panel. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Ao Noticed That The Assessee Had Claimed 15% Of Depreciation & 20% Additional Depreciation On Additions To The Block Of Assets “Plant & Machinery” Of Rs.1,07,34,917/- & Rs.47,737/-. The Sum Of Rs.1,07,34,917/- Was The Cost Of Electrical Installations & Rs.47,737/- Was The Cost Of Fire Extinguisher. According To The Ao The Electrical Installations Were Not To Be Regarded As Plant & Machinery But Has To Be Regarded As Falling Within The Block Of Assets “Furniture & Fitting Including

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

…D 33 (Delhi) wherein it was held that there can be no disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the Act, if there is no exempt income during the relevant previous year. It was brought to our notice that the Hon’ble ITAT Kolkata in the case of REI Agro Ltd. Vs. DCIT 144 ITD 141 (Kol-Trib) has held that it is only the investments which yields dividend during the previous year that has to be considered while adopting the average value of investments for the purpose of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. The aforesaid view of the Tribunal has since been affirmed as correct by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in G.A.No.3581 of 201…

Major Brands (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.CIT -5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (Ground No

ITA 2153/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीऱसं./Ita No.2153/M/2016 (निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Major Brands (India) Pvt. Vs. Acit-5(2), Mumbai Ltd. 401,Skyline Icon, Andheri Kurla Aayakarbhavan,M.K. Road,Andheri(East), Mumbai- Road,Mumbai-400020. 400059. स्थायीऱेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccm 4949 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Paras S.Savla, Ar Respondent By :Shri V. Vidhyadhar, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Paras S.Savla, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…g time for strategic reasons etc. However, we also note that disallowance u/r 8D(2)(iii) should be made only taking into account dividend bearing securities and for that we rely on the judgment of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of REI Agro Ltd. 144 ITD 141 wherein it was held that disallowance should be made by taking the average investments and those securities on which the assessee is getting dividend, that is, dividend bearing Major Brands (India) Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2011-12 securities only. We also rely on the judgment of Coordinate Bench ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Sajjan India Ltd. vs.…

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Universal Cables Limited, Kolkata

In the result, to sum up

ITA 2143/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1766/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2142 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1767/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2143/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…he disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules for both assessment years. In respect of disallowance made under the third limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules, the Ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance on the decision of this tribunal in REI Agro Ltd. reported in 144 ITD 141 held that only dividend bearing investments should be considered for working out the disallowance at 0.5% of average value of investments. Aggrieved, both the assessee as well as revenue are in appeal before us on the following grounds: I.T.A. No. 1766/Kol/2016 for Assessment year 2010-11(Assessee Appeal) 4. That on the facts and in the circumst…

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Universal Cables Limited, Kolkata

In the result, to sum up

ITA 2142/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1766/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2142 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1767/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2143/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…he disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules for both assessment years. In respect of disallowance made under the third limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules, the Ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance on the decision of this tribunal in REI Agro Ltd. reported in 144 ITD 141 held that only dividend bearing investments should be considered for working out the disallowance at 0.5% of average value of investments. Aggrieved, both the assessee as well as revenue are in appeal before us on the following grounds: I.T.A. No. 1766/Kol/2016 for Assessment year 2010-11(Assessee Appeal) 4. That on the facts and in the circumst…

ACIT, Circle-14(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Ambuja Reality Development Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1804/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43

…d the expenses of Rs.75,49,934/- by invoking sec. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by relying on the decisions of CIT Vs. Cortech Energy Pvt. Ltd. 223 Taxman 130 and REI Agro Ltd. Vs. DCIT 144 ITD 141 on the ground that as no dividend was earned disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules is not called for. Aggrieved, revenue is before us. 7. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decisions in the case of Cortech Energy Pvt. Ltd.…

Universal Cables Limited, Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, to sum up

ITA 1767/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1766/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2142 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1767/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2143/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…he disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules for both assessment years. In respect of disallowance made under the third limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules, the Ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance on the decision of this tribunal in REI Agro Ltd. reported in 144 ITD 141 held that only dividend bearing investments should be considered for working out the disallowance at 0.5% of average value of investments. Aggrieved, both the assessee as well as revenue are in appeal before us on the following grounds: I.T.A. No. 1766/Kol/2016 for Assessment year 2010-11(Assessee Appeal) 4. That on the facts and in the circumst…

Universal Cables Limited, Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, to sum up

ITA 1766/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1766/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2142 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1767/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2143/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…he disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules for both assessment years. In respect of disallowance made under the third limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules, the Ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance on the decision of this tribunal in REI Agro Ltd. reported in 144 ITD 141 held that only dividend bearing investments should be considered for working out the disallowance at 0.5% of average value of investments. Aggrieved, both the assessee as well as revenue are in appeal before us on the following grounds: I.T.A. No. 1766/Kol/2016 for Assessment year 2010-11(Assessee Appeal) 4. That on the facts and in the circumst…

DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Hindusthan Gum & Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1601/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1410/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1601 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata -Vs- Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate Shri Vinod Sharma, Ca For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14A

…s should be considered by the ld. AO 4 Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. A.Yr. 2010-11 for working out the disallowance at 0.5% of average value of investment. This finding is in consonance with the decision rendered by this Tribunal in REI Agro Ltd. reported in 144 ITD 141. Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the assessee is partly allowed and ground no. 4 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 3. Disallowance of provision for leave encashment of Rs. 47,75,059/- Ground No. 2 of assessee appeal The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee made a provision for leave encashment amounting to Rs. 47,75,059/- in its b…

Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1410/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1410/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1601 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata -Vs- Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate Shri Vinod Sharma, Ca For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14A

…s should be considered by the ld. AO 4 Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. A.Yr. 2010-11 for working out the disallowance at 0.5% of average value of investment. This finding is in consonance with the decision rendered by this Tribunal in REI Agro Ltd. reported in 144 ITD 141. Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the assessee is partly allowed and ground no. 4 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 3. Disallowance of provision for leave encashment of Rs. 47,75,059/- Ground No. 2 of assessee appeal The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee made a provision for leave encashment amounting to Rs. 47,75,059/- in its b…

Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1081/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT D.R
Section 14ASection 245DSection 245D(1)Section 35A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहमपी.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.1080 & 1081/Mds./2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s/Apollo Hospitals Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Enterprises Ltd., Income Tax , No.21, Greams Lane, Company Circle I(1), Greams Road, Chennai 600 034 Chennai 600 006. [PAN AAACA 5443 N ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant b…

Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1080/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT D.R
Section 14ASection 245DSection 245D(1)Section 35A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहमपी.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.1080 & 1081/Mds./2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s/Apollo Hospitals Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Enterprises Ltd., Income Tax , No.21, Greams Lane, Company Circle I(1), Greams Road, Chennai 600 034 Chennai 600 006. [PAN AAACA 5443 N ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant b…

Spt Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 5, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (Ground no

ITA 265/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.265/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Spt Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata 11, Clive Row, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 1. Ayakar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 69. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aadcs 8015 P (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate. Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Kolkata, In Appeal No.987/Cit(A)-2/C-5/14-15 Dated 14.12.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 28.03.2011. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 2. “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case. 2.That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Sub-Brokerage Payments To Sub-Brokers On The Transactions Related To Shares & Securities Inspite Of Specific Exclusion Of The ‘Brokerage On Shares Trade’ From The Definition Of ‘Commission & Brokerage’ In The Explanation To Section 194H. 3.The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal) Also Erred In Holding That The Appellant Could Not Prove The Transaction To Be Related To The Trading Of Shares Of Securities. 4.The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Further Erred In Upholding The Addition U/S 14A In Respect Of Shares Held As Stock By The Appellant Company.

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: NONE
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194HSection 40

…(supra), does not come to rescue of the assessee. 4.9 Alternatively, the ld. Counsel argued that disallowance under Rule 8D should be made only after considering dividend bearing investments in the light of the judgment of Tribunal in the case of REI Agro Ltd.144 ITD 141, which we are inclined to agree. In REI Agro Ltd.(supra) this Tribunal held that only investments which has given rise to the exempted income should be taken into consideration while computing u/s 8D(2)(ii) & 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. The AO is directed accordingly to compute the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4.10 In the result…