← All Phrases

“Section 10(33)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(33)168 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(33) is CIT v. DLF Commercial Developers Ltd. (35 Taxmann.com 280), cited in 51 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(33)

CIT v. DLF Commercial Developers Ltd.
35 Taxmann.com 280 · 2013 · High Court
51
citing judgments

Loss incurred by certain types of companies in trading derivatives is considered speculative loss under the Explanation to Section 73, as the value of stock derivatives depends on shares. Such speculative losses are ineligible for set-off or carry forward against business income.

Ltd. v. CIT
79 ITR 589 · 1971 · Supreme Court
37
citing judgments

This case is authority for the principle that deductions under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act may be granted in respect of certain categories of receipts. The court's decision in this case is relied upon when interpreting the scope of business activities for tax purposes.

Southern Petro Chemical Industries v. DCIT
3 SOT 157 · 2005 · ITAT
34
citing judgments

Proportionate management expenses are deductible when computing exempt dividend income, as investment decisions are strategic and involve top management.

275(Delhi); Pr. CIT v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corpn Ltd.
143 Taxmann.com 135 · 2022 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Where an expense is incurred for the purpose of acquiring a capital asset, and that asset is subsequently sold, the expenditure must be considered as part of the cost of acquisition of that asset for the purpose of calculating capital gains. This is because the expense forms an integral part of the cost of acquiring the asset, not an expenditure of revenue nature.

ACIT v. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd.
33 SOT 277 · 2009 · ITAT
21
citing judgments

An assessee is eligible for proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) on a pro-rata basis in respect of residential units fulfilling the prescribed conditions, even if other units do not.

DCIT v. Indian Oil Petronas Pvt. Ltd.
127 Taxmann.com 389 · 2021 · Reported
17
citing judgments

The Kolkata ITAT determined that the Supreme Court rulings in Tata Tea and Godrej & Boyce do not present contradictory principles regarding Section 115-O and Section 14A, holding that dividend income, though taxed under Section 115-O, is not part of the shareholder's total income under Section 10(33), but this does not absolve the taxpayer from disallowances under Section 14A.

SSPDL Ltd vs. DCIT, 33 TAXMANN.COM 447. 4) CIT v. Suzlon Energy Ltd., 33
32 Taxmann.com 276 · 2013 · High Court
15
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot make additions under Section 14A concerning investments in shares if the investment was not made for future benefit and was intended for business purposes.

Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd. v. Jt. CIT
105 ITD 33 · 2007 · ITAT
12
citing judgments

An assessee can challenge reassessment proceedings as being without jurisdiction in collateral proceedings for rectification under section 154, even if they have not appealed the reassessment order.

Judgments citing Section 10(33)

M/S. Abu-Dhabi Commercial Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DDIT (It)-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals and cross objections are disposed

ITA 6530/MUM/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dy. Dit(It)-1(1), M/S Abu Dhabi Commercial Room No. 117, Scindia House, Bank Ltd., N.M. Road, Ballard Pier, Vs. 75-B, Rehmant Manzil Veer Mumbai-400001. Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 4216 B Appellant Respondent Co No. 115/Mum/2004 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2205/Mum/2004) Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Co No. 414/Mum/2004 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3925/Mum/2004)

Section 10(15)

income from mutual funds falling within i) Dividend income and income from mutual funds falling within the ambit of the ambit of Section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act 1961, as was of the Income Tax Act 1961, as was applicable for Assessment Year 2002 applicable for Assessment Year ... dividend does not form part of the total income by virtue of the provisions of total income by virtue of the provisions of Section 10(33) Section 10(33). Income from mutual funds stands on the same basis; from mutual funds stands on the same basis; iii)The provisions

The DDIT (I.T)1(1) vs. M/S. Abudabi Commercial Bank Ltd

In the result, all the appeals and cross objections are disposed

ITA 2205/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dy. Dit(It)-1(1), M/S Abu Dhabi Commercial Room No. 117, Scindia House, Bank Ltd., N.M. Road, Ballard Pier, Vs. 75-B, Rehmant Manzil Veer Mumbai-400001. Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 4216 B Appellant Respondent Co No. 115/Mum/2004 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2205/Mum/2004) Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Co No. 414/Mum/2004 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3925/Mum/2004)

Section 10(15)

income from mutual funds falling within i) Dividend income and income from mutual funds falling within the ambit of the ambit of Section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act 1961, as was of the Income Tax Act 1961, as was applicable for Assessment Year 2002 applicable for Assessment Year ... dividend does not form part of the total income by virtue of the provisions of total income by virtue of the provisions of Section 10(33) Section 10(33). Income from mutual funds stands on the same basis; from mutual funds stands on the same basis; iii)The provisions

JCIT, Special Range-27, Mumbai vs. Abu-Dhabi Commercial Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals and cross objections are disposed

ITA 1733/MUM/2001[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dy. Dit(It)-1(1), M/S Abu Dhabi Commercial Room No. 117, Scindia House, Bank Ltd., N.M. Road, Ballard Pier, Vs. 75-B, Rehmant Manzil Veer Mumbai-400001. Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 4216 B Appellant Respondent Co No. 115/Mum/2004 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2205/Mum/2004) Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Co No. 414/Mum/2004 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3925/Mum/2004)

Section 10(15)

income from mutual funds falling within i) Dividend income and income from mutual funds falling within the ambit of the ambit of Section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act 1961, as was of the Income Tax Act 1961, as was applicable for Assessment Year 2002 applicable for Assessment Year ... dividend does not form part of the total income by virtue of the provisions of total income by virtue of the provisions of Section 10(33) Section 10(33). Income from mutual funds stands on the same basis; from mutual funds stands on the same basis; iii)The provisions

J.P Tobacco Product Pvt. Ltd., Damoh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Sagar

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

ITA 155/JAB/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. J.P.Tobacco Products Vs Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Patharia Phatak, Circle-Sagar. Damoh (M.P.). (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7141G Assessee By Shri G.N.Purohit, Sr.Adv. & Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

income which did not form part of the total income under this Act. The attention of the Court was also drawn to Section 10(33) to show that the income arising from the transfer of a capital asset could not be reckoned as an income which formed part

M/S. United Phosphorus Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4695/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. United Phosphorus Limited, Mumbai (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Opp. Madhu Park Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052 Pan: Aaacu3440P ...... Appellant Vs. Acit Cc -2 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-38 Mumbai ..... Respondent Acit Cc -2 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-38 Mumbai ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. United Phosphorus Limited, Mumbai (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Opp. Madhu Park Khar (W) Mumbai – 400 052 Pan: Aaacu3440P ...... Respondent (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B Patel / Shri KiritFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

During the previous year, the assessee received dividend Income amounting to Rs. 16,36,570/- which was claimed as exempt under section 10(33). The Dividend received from Indian subsidiaries was Rs. 6, 10,000/- and Dividend received from others was Rs. 10, 26,570/-. In the return of income

Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Cir 1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 5431/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10BSection 80HSection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S

Jm Financial Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3987/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)

assessee. That, the assessee did receive dividend. The fact that the dividend received was tax-free is the position recognized under section 10(33) of the Act. The assessee had made use of the said provision of the Act. That such use cannot be called "abuse of law". Even assuming

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. J.M. Financial Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3925/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)

assessee. That, the assessee did receive dividend. The fact that the dividend received was tax-free is the position recognized under section 10(33) of the Act. The assessee had made use of the said provision of the Act. That such use cannot be called "abuse of law". Even assuming

Icici Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 158/MUM/2023[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit Cir 3(1) Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, Icici Towers, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cir. 2(3)(1) Icici Towers, North East Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Wing, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bkc, Bandra(E) Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Visanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri. K.C. Selvamani, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri. K.C. Selvamani, DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 33Section 47

under section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that a. all material facts regarding the claim of exemption under section 10(33), deduction under section 36(1)(viii) and exemption under section 10(236) was on record at the time of original assessment and the assessment

The DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 5765/MUM/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit Cir 3(1) Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, Icici Towers, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cir. 2(3)(1) Icici Towers, North East Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Wing, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bkc, Bandra(E) Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Visanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri. K.C. Selvamani, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri. K.C. Selvamani, DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 33Section 47

under section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that a. all material facts regarding the claim of exemption under section 10(33), deduction under section 36(1)(viii) and exemption under section 10(236) was on record at the time of original assessment and the assessment

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Wyeth Ltd ( Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

dividend as expenditure for earning such income. The CIT(A) further erred in holding that Addl.CIT was justified in computing exemption under Section 10(33) of the Act accordingly. Your appellants pray that the Addl.CIT be directed to grant exemption under Section 10(33) of the Act as claimed ... raised by the assessee is allowed. 70. With regard to Ground No. 5 which is in respect of Non grant of exemption under section 10(33) of the Act as claimed in the return of income. Brief facts are that, in the return of income, the assessee had claimed

The DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Icici Bank Ltd. ( in Respect of M/S. Itc Classic Finanace Ltd. Merged With Icici Ban Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4223/MUM/2008[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 10(15)(v)Section 10(33)Section 115Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

total interest attributable to earning of exempt income u/s. 14A of the Act. 4. In response, assessee submitted that after combined reading of section 10(33) of the Act and section 115-O of the Act, the exemption is available on gross dividend and not on net income. The investment

M/S. ACIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. The Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 4033/MUM/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Hindustan Unilever Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hindustan Lever Income Tax, Range 1(1) House, 165/166 Backbay Mumbai Reclamation Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach1004N Appellant .. Respondent Acit-1(1), Vs. M/S Hindustan Unilever Room No. 579, Ltd., 165/166, Backbay Aayakar Bhavan, Reclamation Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach1004N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Chandip Singh Date Of Hearing 09.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assesse & The Revenue Are Pertained To Assessment Year 2000-01 Based On Similar Fact & P A G E | 2

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Chandip Singh
Section 80Section 80ASection 80H

representing unutilised balance of Modvat as on 31.3.2000. 12. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the reduction of appellant's claim under section 10(33) by notional expenditure of Rs.72.487/-. 12.1 He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that the appellant did not incur any expenditure

M/S. Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (TDS)-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3951/MUM/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Hindustan Unilever Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hindustan Lever Income Tax, Range 1(1) House, 165/166 Backbay Mumbai Reclamation Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach1004N Appellant .. Respondent Acit-1(1), Vs. M/S Hindustan Unilever Room No. 579, Ltd., 165/166, Backbay Aayakar Bhavan, Reclamation Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach1004N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Chandip Singh Date Of Hearing 09.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assesse & The Revenue Are Pertained To Assessment Year 2000-01 Based On Similar Fact & P A G E | 2

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Chandip Singh
Section 80Section 80ASection 80H

representing unutilised balance of Modvat as on 31.3.2000. 12. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the reduction of appellant's claim under section 10(33) by notional expenditure of Rs.72.487/-. 12.1 He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that the appellant did not incur any expenditure

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 1953/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

inserting Section 115-O, additional income- tax is levied on the amount of profits declared, distributed or paid as dividend and by inserting Section 10(33) it is made clear that the dividends referred to in Section 115-O would be exempt from tax." 50. Thus, it can be stated ... expenditure incurred to earn the income on which such tax is paid” which is wholly incongruous in view of the provisions of Section 10(33). The payment of dividend distribution tax under section 115 ‘O’ doers not discharge the tax liability of the shareholders. It is a liability

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 1952/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

inserting Section 115-O, additional income- tax is levied on the amount of profits declared, distributed or paid as dividend and by inserting Section 10(33) it is made clear that the dividends referred to in Section 115-O would be exempt from tax." 50. Thus, it can be stated ... expenditure incurred to earn the income on which such tax is paid” which is wholly incongruous in view of the provisions of Section 10(33). The payment of dividend distribution tax under section 115 ‘O’ doers not discharge the tax liability of the shareholders. It is a liability

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 521/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

inserting Section 115-O, additional income- tax is levied on the amount of profits declared, distributed or paid as dividend and by inserting Section 10(33) it is made clear that the dividends referred to in Section 115-O would be exempt from tax." 50. Thus, it can be stated ... expenditure incurred to earn the income on which such tax is paid” which is wholly incongruous in view of the provisions of Section 10(33). The payment of dividend distribution tax under section 115 ‘O’ doers not discharge the tax liability of the shareholders. It is a liability

Maruti Suzuki India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Spl. Range-6, New Delhi

ITA 8968/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

inserting Section 115-O, additional income- tax is levied on the amount of profits declared, distributed or paid as dividend and by inserting Section 10(33) it is made clear that the dividends referred to in Section 115-O would be exempt from tax." 50. Thus, it can be stated ... expenditure incurred to earn the income on which such tax is paid” which is wholly incongruous in view of the provisions of Section 10(33). The payment of dividend distribution tax under section 115 ‘O’ doers not discharge the tax liability of the shareholders. It is a liability

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 8009/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

inserting Section 115-O, additional income- tax is levied on the amount of profits declared, distributed or paid as dividend and by inserting Section 10(33) it is made clear that the dividends referred to in Section 115-O would be exempt from tax." 50. Thus, it can be stated ... expenditure incurred to earn the income on which such tax is paid” which is wholly incongruous in view of the provisions of Section 10(33). The payment of dividend distribution tax under section 115 ‘O’ doers not discharge the tax liability of the shareholders. It is a liability

DCIT-2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5653/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 80Section 92

1 ITA 5653/Mum/2009 M/s Zensar Technologies Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE AMIT SHUKLA