← All Phrases

“Section 14(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 14Section 14(2)56 judgments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. VASCON ENGINEERS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is Dismissed

ITA 1105/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Vs. Vascon Engineers Limited, Of Income Tax, Pune. Vascon Weikfileld Chamber, Opposite Hyatt Hotel, Nagar Road, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaacv1249F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ajit Tolani & Darpan Kriplani Revenue By Smt. Indira R. Adakil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.02.2025Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3/4) Of The Act, 1961 Dated 23.01.2017 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(u)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”बी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

CAPRICON REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5696/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

M/S. FORTUNE GOURMET SPECIALITIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4191/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrim/S. Fortune Gourment Vs. Acit Circle 6(3)(1) Specialities Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 107 Adhyaru Industrial Mumbai-400020. Estate, Sun Mill Comound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacf4952B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan KakkadFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

FORTUNE GOURMET SPECALITIES PRIVATE LIMTED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 4010/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D/R
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1663/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT
Section 14ASection 92C

absence of any such finding, the disallowance made was not justifiable. In fact, the Assessing Officer straightaway proceeded to the second limb of Section 14(2) of the Act, which is impermissible. The Tribunal rightly took note of the decision in the case of Redington India Ltd. (supra), wherein

CERA SANITARYWARE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1333/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2020-21 Cera Sanitaryware Ltd The Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) 7Th & 8Th Floor, “B” Wing Vs Ahmedabad. Privilon, Ambli Brts Road Iskcon Cross Roads Shilaj Bo, Taluka : Daskroi Dist: Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabcm 9244 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Dinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Malarkodi R., Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Smt.Malarkodi R., Sr.DR
Section 14ASection 250

ld.CIT(A) also at page no.36 to 37 of his order as under: The provisions of Rule 8D read with the provisions of section 14(2) clearly mandate that it would be applicable and arise when the assessing officer is not satisfied with the claim of the expenditure made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. SYMPHOY LIMITED, BODAKDEV,AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1433/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice(Retd.) C V Bhadang & Dr.Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Bharat S Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shi Yogesh Mishra, S.DR
Section 115Section 14(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

Rules. On the other hand, the Ld.AR argued that Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– the Assessing Officer has no reason to invoke provisions of section 14(2) as the assessee has reasonably computed the disallowance on a scientific basis. 7. We have gone through the provision

RALLIS INDIA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4210/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2024AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golwala, A/RFor Respondent: \nShri Pankaj Kumar, CIT, D/R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई ।\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“J” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI NARENDRA

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, claim of deduction was not allowed

ITA 3178/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3175/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2008-09) Dcit (Cc)-8(3), Mumbai 63 Moons Technologies Limited Cts No. 256-257, F.T. Tower, Vs Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri, Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aaacf 5737 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT/DR
Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 40

satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for rejecting the suo moto disallowances claimed by the assessee is not done as required under section 14(2) of the Act. On facts, the view taken by the Tribunal is a possible view and calls for no interference." 28. We find that facts ... assessee has deleted the disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act since the AO had not recorded proper satisfaction as envisaged in section 14(2) of the Act as discussed in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Since there is no change in the facts of the case from

DCIT (CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LTD Q, MUMBAI

Accordingly, claim of deduction was not allowed

ITA 3175/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3175/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2008-09) Dcit (Cc)-8(3), Mumbai 63 Moons Technologies Limited Cts No. 256-257, F.T. Tower, Vs Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri, Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aaacf 5737 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT/DR
Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 40

satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for rejecting the suo moto disallowances claimed by the assessee is not done as required under section 14(2) of the Act. On facts, the view taken by the Tribunal is a possible view and calls for no interference." 28. We find that facts ... assessee has deleted the disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act since the AO had not recorded proper satisfaction as envisaged in section 14(2) of the Act as discussed in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Since there is no change in the facts of the case from

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 303/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand Vasant

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 302/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand Vasant

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 199/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand Vasant

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 198/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand Vasant

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 712/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER | ITA NO. 674/Del/2024 | | A.YR.: 2018-19 | | DLF LIMITED, | | 9TH FLOOR, DLF CENTRE, | | SANSAD MARG, | | NEW DELHI – 110 001 | | (PAN: AAACD3494N) | | (APPELLANT) | | VS. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI | | (RESPONDENT) | AND | ITA NO. 712/DEL/2024 | | AY 2018-19 | | DCIT, CIRCLE 7(1), | | NEW DELHI | | ROOM NO. 404, 4TH FLOOR, | | C.R. BUILDING, | | I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI – 2 | | (RESPONDENT) | | VS.

For Appellant: Sh. Satya Jeet Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, CIT(DR) & Ms
Section 14A

wherein the disallowance was deleted on the ground of non-recording of satisfaction in terms of section 14(2), hence, respectfully following the said precedent in assessee’s own case, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue

DLF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 674/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Satya Jeet Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, CIT(DR) & Ms
Section 14A

wherein the disallowance was deleted on the ground of non-recording of satisfaction in terms of section 14(2), hence, respectfully following the said precedent in assessee’s own case, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. MANIPAL HEALTH ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1208/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14A

expenses were incurred. 17. The satisfaction of the Ld.A.O. has to be arrived at by having regards to the accounts of the Appellant. Section 14(2) read with Rule 8D(2) does not ipso facto enable the Ld.A.O. to apply the method prescribed by the Rules straightway without considering

MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1092/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14A

expenses were incurred. 17. The satisfaction of the Ld.A.O. has to be arrived at by having regards to the accounts of the Appellant. Section 14(2) read with Rule 8D(2) does not ipso facto enable the Ld.A.O. to apply the method prescribed by the Rules straightway without considering

MANIPAL HEALTH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1031/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14A

expenses were incurred. 17. The satisfaction of the Ld.A.O. has to be arrived at by having regards to the accounts of the Appellant. Section 14(2) read with Rule 8D(2) does not ipso facto enable the Ld.A.O. to apply the method prescribed by the Rules straightway without considering

DASH EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT , CC-27, , NEW DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2278/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 14(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 9(5)

relation to the Corporate debtor prohibiting proviso (a) to (d) of the Code. However, during the pendency of the moratorium period, terms of Section 14(2) to 14(4) of the Code shall come in vogue.” 4. Therefore, keeping in view the order of learned NCLT, declaring moratorium as envisaged

Showing 1–20 of 56 · Page 1 of 3