Shobha Developers Ltd. v. DCIT (LTU)

434 ITR 266High Court2021#3975 most cited

What is Shobha Developers Ltd. v. DCIT (LTU) authority for?

Disallowance made under Section 14A cannot be added back to book profit computed under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Shobha Developers Ltd. v. DCIT · 434 ITR 266 · Section 14A · Section 115JB · disallowance u/s 14A · book profit · Karnataka High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 14ASection 1961Section 143(3)Section 80IBSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 92f(v)section 80ia(5)section 10(2a)section 10(35)bright line testresale price methodsection 144c(10)amp expendituremultiple year datasection 115jasection 14a(1)section 92f

Judgments citing Shobha Developers Ltd. v. DCIT (LTU)

VEEDOL CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1945/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 4(1) Veedol Corporation Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Yule House, 8, Dr. Rajendra 8Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Prasad Sarani, Kolkata-700001, Vs. Square, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct1122C Assessee By : Shri Anup Sinha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bonnie Debbarma, DR
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…der the provision while calculating the book profit u/s 115Jb of the Act. Similar raito has been laid by Sobha Developers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, LTU, Bangalore [2021] 125 taxmann.com 72 (Karnataka)/[2021] 278 Taxman 338 (Karnataka)/[2021] 434 ITR 266 (Karnataka)[04-01-2021] and Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. J.J. Glastronics (P.) Ltd. [2022] 139 taxmann.com 375 (Karnataka)/[2022] 287 Taxman 610 (Karnataka)/[2022] 446 ITR 712 (Karnataka)[13-04-2022]. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of the Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. [2017…

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1801/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

…s issue is no longer res-integra and has been decided in the favour of the Assessee by High Court of Delhi [PCIT v. Moon Star Securities Trading & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd., [2024] 469 ITR 15 (Delhi HC)] as well as Karnataka [Sobha Developers Ltd. v. DCIT, [2021] 434 ITR 266 (Karnataka HC) and by jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Century Plyboards (L) Ltd., [2021] 123 taxmann.com 256 (Kolkata-Trib). The Coordinate Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Century Plyboards (L) Ltd. has held as under: “8. With regard to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D while computing the boo…

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2631/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

…s issue is no longer res-integra and has been decided in the favour of the Assessee by High Court of Delhi [PCIT v. Moon Star Securities Trading & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd., [2024] 469 ITR 15 (Delhi HC)] as well as Karnataka [Sobha Developers Ltd. v. DCIT, [2021] 434 ITR 266 (Karnataka HC) and by jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Century Plyboards (L) Ltd., [2021] 123 taxmann.com 256 (Kolkata-Trib). The Coordinate Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Century Plyboards (L) Ltd. has held as under: “8. With regard to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D while computing the boo…

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 78/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

…s issue is no longer res-integra and has been decided in the favour of the Assessee by High Court of Delhi [PCIT v. Moon Star Securities Trading & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd., [2024] 469 ITR 15 (Delhi HC)] as well as Karnataka [Sobha Developers Ltd. v. DCIT, [2021] 434 ITR 266 (Karnataka HC) and by jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Century Plyboards (L) Ltd., [2021] 123 taxmann.com 256 (Kolkata-Trib). The Coordinate Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Century Plyboards (L) Ltd. has held as under: “8. With regard to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D while computing the boo…

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI vs. M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

…the Act was to be added back while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue stands settled by the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sobha Developers Ltd. vs CIT (434 ITR 266) wherein on similar facts and circumstances it was held that, the disallowance made u/s 14A cannot be added to book profit u/s 115JB. The relevant findings taken note of are as follows:- “6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of relevant extra…

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 554/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

…the Act was to be added back while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue stands settled by the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sobha Developers Ltd. vs CIT (434 ITR 266) wherein on similar facts and circumstances it was held that, the disallowance made u/s 14A cannot be added to book profit u/s 115JB. The relevant findings taken note of are as follows:- “6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of relevant extra…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

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

ITA 161/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDCIIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2015-16 Karnataka Bank Ltd., Head Office, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Mahaveer Circle, Kankanady, of Income Tax, Mangalore – 575 002. Circle 2(1), PAN : AABCT 5589K Mangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Mangalore – 575 002. Circle 2(1), Mangalore. PAN : AABCT 5589K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAs Revenue by : S…

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

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

ITA 1107/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDCIIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2015-16 Karnataka Bank Ltd., Head Office, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Mahaveer Circle, Kankanady, of Income Tax, Mangalore – 575 002. Circle 2(1), PAN : AABCT 5589K Mangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Mangalore – 575 002. Circle 2(1), Mangalore. PAN : AABCT 5589K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAs Revenue by : S…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. UFLEX LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

ITA 2200/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT,DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 801BSection 80I

…aised ground No. 3, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Special Bench in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 165 ITD 27 (Delhi) (SB) and the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Shobha Developers Ltd. vs. DCIT (LTU) (2021) 434 ITR 266 (Kar) for the proposition that where disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D were deleted, addition for said disallowance cannot be made to book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 16. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 17. We have given our careful thought to the submission of the parties and perused the records…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. UFLEX LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

ITA 2199/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT,DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 801BSection 80I

…aised ground No. 3, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Special Bench in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 165 ITD 27 (Delhi) (SB) and the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Shobha Developers Ltd. vs. DCIT (LTU) (2021) 434 ITR 266 (Kar) for the proposition that where disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D were deleted, addition for said disallowance cannot be made to book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 16. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 17. We have given our careful thought to the submission of the parties and perused the records…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. UFLEX LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

ITA 2198/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT,DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 801BSection 80I

…aised ground No. 3, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Special Bench in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 165 ITD 27 (Delhi) (SB) and the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Shobha Developers Ltd. vs. DCIT (LTU) (2021) 434 ITR 266 (Kar) for the proposition that where disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D were deleted, addition for said disallowance cannot be made to book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 16. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 17. We have given our careful thought to the submission of the parties and perused the records…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. UFLEX LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

ITA 2197/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT,DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 801BSection 80I

…aised ground No. 3, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Special Bench in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 165 ITD 27 (Delhi) (SB) and the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Shobha Developers Ltd. vs. DCIT (LTU) (2021) 434 ITR 266 (Kar) for the proposition that where disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D were deleted, addition for said disallowance cannot be made to book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 16. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 17. We have given our careful thought to the submission of the parties and perused the records…

UFLEX LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

ITA 1572/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT,DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 801BSection 80I

…aised ground No. 3, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Special Bench in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 165 ITD 27 (Delhi) (SB) and the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Shobha Developers Ltd. vs. DCIT (LTU) (2021) 434 ITR 266 (Kar) for the proposition that where disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D were deleted, addition for said disallowance cannot be made to book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 16. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 17. We have given our careful thought to the submission of the parties and perused the records…

UFLEX LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

ITA 1571/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT,DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 801BSection 80I

…aised ground No. 3, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Special Bench in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 165 ITD 27 (Delhi) (SB) and the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Shobha Developers Ltd. vs. DCIT (LTU) (2021) 434 ITR 266 (Kar) for the proposition that where disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D were deleted, addition for said disallowance cannot be made to book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 16. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 17. We have given our careful thought to the submission of the parties and perused the records…

UFLEX LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

ITA 1570/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT,DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 801BSection 80I

…aised ground No. 3, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Special Bench in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 165 ITD 27 (Delhi) (SB) and the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Shobha Developers Ltd. vs. DCIT (LTU) (2021) 434 ITR 266 (Kar) for the proposition that where disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D were deleted, addition for said disallowance cannot be made to book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 16. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 17. We have given our careful thought to the submission of the parties and perused the records…

UFLEX LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

ITA 1569/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT,DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 801BSection 80I

…aised ground No. 3, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Special Bench in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 165 ITD 27 (Delhi) (SB) and the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Shobha Developers Ltd. vs. DCIT (LTU) (2021) 434 ITR 266 (Kar) for the proposition that where disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D were deleted, addition for said disallowance cannot be made to book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 16. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 17. We have given our careful thought to the submission of the parties and perused the records…

EMPEE DISTILLERIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT CORPORATE RANGE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal dated 9-1-2015 insofar as it pertains to the findings recorded against the assessee is hereby quashed

ITA 2336/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2334, 2335 & 2336/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Empee Distilleries Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Empee Tower, No. 59, Harris Road, Vs. Income Tax, Company Range Ii, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Chennai Presently Corporate [Pan:Aaace1687N] Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Raveendra Benakatti, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Dated 28.07.2017, Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issues Have Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Common Grounds: 1. The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 28.07.2017 In I.T.A.No.20/2010-11/Cit(A)-9 For The Above

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raveendra Benakatti, JCIT
Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…tion 115JB(2) of the Act, is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 6.7 Similar issue was subject matter in appeal in the case of Sobha Developers Ltd. v. DCIT, LTU, Bangalore [2021] 434 ITR 266 (Kar.), wherein, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has considered the entire provision of section 115JB of the Act in para 7 of its order and the relevant para is reproduced as under: “7. Thus from perusal of the relevant extract of section 115JB, it is evident that sub- section (1) of section 115JB provides the mode of computation of the total in…

EMPEE DISTILLERIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT CORPORATE RANGE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal dated 9-1-2015 insofar as it pertains to the findings recorded against the assessee is hereby quashed

ITA 2335/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2334, 2335 & 2336/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Empee Distilleries Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Empee Tower, No. 59, Harris Road, Vs. Income Tax, Company Range Ii, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Chennai Presently Corporate [Pan:Aaace1687N] Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Raveendra Benakatti, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Dated 28.07.2017, Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issues Have Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Common Grounds: 1. The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 28.07.2017 In I.T.A.No.20/2010-11/Cit(A)-9 For The Above

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raveendra Benakatti, JCIT
Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…tion 115JB(2) of the Act, is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 6.7 Similar issue was subject matter in appeal in the case of Sobha Developers Ltd. v. DCIT, LTU, Bangalore [2021] 434 ITR 266 (Kar.), wherein, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has considered the entire provision of section 115JB of the Act in para 7 of its order and the relevant para is reproduced as under: “7. Thus from perusal of the relevant extract of section 115JB, it is evident that sub- section (1) of section 115JB provides the mode of computation of the total in…

EMPEE DISTILLERIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT CORPORATE RANGE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal dated 9-1-2015 insofar as it pertains to the findings recorded against the assessee is hereby quashed

ITA 2334/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2334, 2335 & 2336/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Empee Distilleries Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Empee Tower, No. 59, Harris Road, Vs. Income Tax, Company Range Ii, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Chennai Presently Corporate [Pan:Aaace1687N] Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Raveendra Benakatti, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Dated 28.07.2017, Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issues Have Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Common Grounds: 1. The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 28.07.2017 In I.T.A.No.20/2010-11/Cit(A)-9 For The Above

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raveendra Benakatti, JCIT
Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…tion 115JB(2) of the Act, is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 6.7 Similar issue was subject matter in appeal in the case of Sobha Developers Ltd. v. DCIT, LTU, Bangalore [2021] 434 ITR 266 (Kar.), wherein, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has considered the entire provision of section 115JB of the Act in para 7 of its order and the relevant para is reproduced as under: “7. Thus from perusal of the relevant extract of section 115JB, it is evident that sub- section (1) of section 115JB provides the mode of computation of the total in…

M/S SUNDARAM FINANCE HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATECIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 312/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.312/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Sundaram Finance Holdings The Asst. Commissioner Limited, Of Income Tax, No.21, Pattulos Road, Vs. Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs-3116-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2022 : 18.08.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 10Section 10(35)Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…unal. Now before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is settled by the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and that is the solitary judgment till now in the case of Sobha Developers Ltd. v. :- 4 -: DCIT, LTU, Bangalore [2021] 434 ITR 266 (Kar.), wherein the entire provision of s. 115JB of the Act was discussed in Para 7 and held that the provisions of s. 115JB of the Act will not apply while making disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. The relevant Para 7 referred by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reads as under: “7. Thus from perusal of the relevant extract of section 115JB, it…

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2