“disallowance u/s 14A”

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopaldy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Kotak Mahindra Income-Tax, 3(2) Bank Ltd. 36-38A, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Ayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack4409J Respondent .. Appellant M/S Kotak Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Bank Ltd. 36-38A, Income-Tax-3(2) 227 Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack4409J Appellant .. Respondent

determined in accordance with rule 8D and stated that amendment to Sec. 14A was retrospective. Accordingly, the assessing officer had worked out disallowance u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D to the amount of Rs.11,49,35,029/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. The assessee had filed appeal

M/S. Avinash Bhosale Infrastructure, Pune vs. DCIT Central Cir- 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1952/मुं/2020 ("न.व 2017-18) M/S. Avinash Bhosale Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 2, Abil House, Ganesh Khind Road, Range Hill Corner, Pune 411 007. Pan: Aabca-5452-C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit Central Cir 2(3), 8Th Floor, Room No.803, Old Cgo Bldg. Pratistha Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri T. Shankar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 28/12/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2022

without recording satisfaction. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that a perusal of the assessment order would show that before computing disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act, the Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction having regard to the accounts of the assessee and correctness ... most proportionate disallowance of said expenditure could be made towards earning of exempt income, the assessee has not made any suo-motu disallowance u/s. 14A. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee asserted that the statute requires that before proceeding to make disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act in terms

Asstt. CIT (OSD) - CC -7 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S Lodha Developers Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S Shri Rifaur Rahamn & Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – Cc-7(3) Vs. Macrotech Developers Room No. 655, 6Th Ltd (Successor To Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bellissimo Crown Mk Road, Mumbai – Buildmart Pvt Ltd) 400020. (Earlier Known As Lodha Crown Build Mart Ltd) 412, 17-G, Vardhaman Chambers, Cp Road, Horniman Circle Fort, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl1490J Appellant .. Respondent Macrotech Developers Vs. Dcit – Cc-7(3) Ltd (Successor To Room No. 655, 6Th Bellissimo Crown Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Buildmart Pvt Ltd) Mk Road, Mumbai – (Earlier Known As 400020. Lodha Crown Build Mart Ltd) 412, 17-G, Vardhaman Chambers, Cp Road, Horniman Circle Fort, Mumbai – 400001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl1490J Appellant .. Respondent

appreciating the fact that the appellant’s own funds was greater than investment capable of generating exempt income and hence no additional disallowance u/s 14A is warranted in the case of the appellant. ” 2. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business ... satisfied with the explanations and disallowed the ITA.no.2387,2336,131&68/Mum/2019 Macrotech Developers Ltd, Mumbai. claim. (ii) Similarly the A.O made disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D and observed that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 4,87,78,454/- and claimed exempt u/sec10

Asst. CIT 9 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Future Enterprises Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us:

Rs.89,57,11,253/- u/s 115JB of the Act by making addition of Rs.83,57,11,253/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.rule 8D of the I.T. Rules 1962. Subsequently, the assessee has filed a rectification application dated 16.02.2017 pointing out that 4 ITA No.6529/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 ACIT

Arch Impex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

determining the total income at Rs.215,94,313/- after disallowing the claim of processing fees of Rs.94,97,458/- and making further disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 3. During the course of the appellate proceedings before us, at the outset the ld. counsel of the assessee pleaded that reopening ... reopening is bad in law is dismissed. 6. We adjudicate the ground of appeal of the assessee on merit as follows: “Upholding the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act of Rs.1,14,28,916/-.” 7. During the course of the assessment u/s 143(3) the A.O has made a disallowance

ACIT Circle-2 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Madura Garments Lifestyle Retail Co. Ltd (Now Merged With Aditya Birla Finance Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2(1)(1), M/S Madura Garments Lifestyle Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Retail Co. Ltd. (Now Merged With Bhavan, M.K. Road, Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.), Mumbai-400020. 18Th Floor, One Indiabulls Centre, Tower-1, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aafcm 0483 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aditya Birla Finance Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle-2(1)(1), (Successor Of M/S Madura Vs. Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Garments & Lifestyle Retail Bhavan, M.K. Road, Company Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. 18Th Floor, One Indiabulls Centre, Tower-1, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aafcm 0483 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Jishaan Jain, Ars Revenue By : Mr. S.N. Kabra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/03/2022

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act r.w. Rule 8D made by the AO without appreciating that the method of working of disallowance is held as reasonable method by jurisdictional High ... High Court in its decision in the case of Goetz India Ltd., reported in 361 ITR 505 held that while computing Book Profit disallowance u/s 14A is required to be made. However, in its later judgment the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bhushan Steel

Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Addlcit, Bangalore

858/M/2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to quantify the disallowance u/s 14A as per principle of proportion as against application of Rule 8D r.w.s14A as held by the A.O. 2.3 The assessee has also filed ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in directing the AO to re-compute the disallowance u/s. 14A following the proportionate method as directed by the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Bangalore in the original appellate order ignoring the fact that department

Oriental Aromatics Ltd, Mumbi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law confirming the action of the learned AO in making disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of the Rules despite the fact that the Appellant was having surplus interest free funds for making the investment. 9. The learned C1T(A) erred in fact ... Appellant. 10. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law confirming the action of the learned AO in making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. 14. So far as this issue is concerned, learned representatives fairly agree, that in accordance with

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Lush Hotels and Entertainment Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2700/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(3) बिधम/ M/S. Lush Hotels & Room No.1921, 19Th Floor, Entertainment Ltd. Vs. Air India Building, Nariman (M/S. Lush Hospitality Ltd.) 10, Homi Modi Street, 2Nd Point, Mumbai-400021. Floor, Above Kapal Bank, Fort, Mumbai-400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcl2464P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. R. Agrawal Revenue By: Shri Mehul Jain (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -02, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013- 14. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Share Application Money Received From M/S. Third Eye Infrastructure Ltd. In Spite Of The Fact That It Had No Taxable Income & Filed Its Return Of Income At Rs. Nil For The Same Assessment Year. A.Y.2013-14 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Without Appreciating The Facts That The Parties From Whom M/S. Teil Had Received Funds Were Not Having Creditworthiness Vis-A-Vis The Amount Paid To M/S. Teil By Them Respectively.

treated the same as un-genuine and raised the addition u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. After some disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D and disallowance of depreciation, the AO assessed the income to the tune of Rs.8,93,01,445/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed

DCIT 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sky Appliances Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2014-15

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that no disallowance u/s 14A is called for in respect of investments which do not earn exempt income which is contrary to 2 M/s. Sky Appliances Ltd. CBDT Circular No.5/2014 ... Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that no disallowance u/s 14A is called for in respect of investments which do not earn exempt income in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

adjudication: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r. w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) to 0.5% by taking the average value of that investment which have yielded a dividend during ... Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w Rule 8D(2)(iii) to the amount calculated by the assessee for the purpose of income u/s. 115JB

DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

adjudication: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r. w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) to 0.5% by taking the average value of that investment which have yielded a dividend during ... Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w Rule 8D(2)(iii) to the amount calculated by the assessee for the purpose of income u/s. 115JB

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

adjudication: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r. w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) to 0.5% by taking the average value of that investment which have yielded a dividend during ... Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w Rule 8D(2)(iii) to the amount calculated by the assessee for the purpose of income u/s. 115JB

Ecl Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. - 3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

calculating disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I.T. Rules. d. In the alternative and without prejudice to the above, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is excessive and unreasonable. Ground No.8 - Short credit of TDS a. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case

Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -Circle-14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1074/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kotak Mahindra Asset बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-14(2)(1) Management Co. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. 27 Bkc, Bandra Kurla 400020. Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack5576C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Farrokh Irani Revenue By: Shri Shambu Yadav (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.04.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “(Nfac)”] In The Relevant A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 14{2) 1 Amounting To Rs.29,07,525 Under Section 14A By Invoking The Provisions Of Rule 8D(2)(Ii).

above, the Appellant prays that the AO be directed to exclude strategic Investments and investment made in unlisted companies for working out disallowance u/s 14A. 11. Without prejudice to the above, AO be directed to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) only w.r.t. those investments which ... disallowance of Rs.14,272/- under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The assessee was asked to furnish the detail of expenditure as to why disallowance u/s 14A of the I. T. Act, 1961 r.w. Rule 8D should not be made. After the reply of the assessee, the AO disallowed the expenditure