Rule 8D of the Rules:- 1. Graviss Hospitality Ltd. v. DCIT

67 SOT 184Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#21226 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,627 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing Rule 8D of the Rules:- 1. Graviss Hospitality Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7241/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…taxmann.com 111) (SC), Maxopp Investment Ltd. Mangalore Refinery (203 Taxmann 364) (Del HC), CIT v. I.P Support Services India Private Limited (378 ITR 240) (Del HC), CIT v. REI Agro Ltd. (ITA No. 161 of 2013) (Cal. HC) and Graviss Hospitality Ltd. v. DCIT (67 SOT 184) (Mum). It is further submitted that the assessee has sufficient own funds/net worth as compared to the investments made as can be seen from the audited financial statements and accordingly, no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) (Bom.), CIT v. HDFC Ba…

Magnalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(2)

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7133/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…taxmann.com 111) (SC), Maxopp Investment Ltd. Mangalore Refinery (203 Taxmann 364) (Del HC), CIT v. I.P Support Services India Private Limited (378 ITR 240) (Del HC), CIT v. REI Agro Ltd. (ITA No. 161 of 2013) (Cal. HC) and Graviss Hospitality Ltd. v. DCIT (67 SOT 184) (Mum). It is further submitted that the assessee has sufficient own funds/net worth as compared to the investments made as can be seen from the audited financial statements and accordingly, no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) (Bom.), CIT v. HDFC Ba…

Mahesh Udyoga P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1094/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.1094/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mahesh Udyoga P. Ltd. बनाम/ I.T.O. 2(2)(3) Jash Chambers, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Sir P. M. Road, Fort, Mumbai Mumbai - 400001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm7662H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri B. Satyanarayana Raju
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…h is more than the dividend income hence, the finding of the Assessing Officer which has been confirmed by the CIT(A) is wrong against law and facts and liable to be set aside and also placed reliance upon the law settled in Graviss Hospitality Ltd. Vs. DCIT (67 SOT 184)(Mum.Trib) and Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (ITA ITA No.1094.M.12 A.Y. 2008-09 No.117 of 2015)(Del.HC) and Pinnacle Brocom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.6247 of 2012) (Mum). 5. On the other hand the learned representative of the department has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. By giving the careful thoughts to…

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

ITA 1157/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

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)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. Doshi &For Respondent: Shri M. Rajan
Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…o. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (328 ITR 81)(Bom) 2. CIT Vs. I.P. Support 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.14…

Rule 8D of the Rules:- 1. Graviss Hospitality Ltd. v. DCIT (67 SOT 184) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax