“disallowance u/s 14A”

DisallowancesSection 14ASection 14A2,938 judgments

The decision most relied on for disallowance u/s 14A is CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd. (223 Taxmann 130), cited in 579 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on disallowance u/s 14A

CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd.

223 Taxmann 130 · 2014 · High Court

579

citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not warranted if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year.

CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.

330 ITR 175 · 2011 · High Court

207

citing judgments

Disallowances made under various sections, such as for PF/ESIC contributions, result in an increase in business profits, and these enhanced profits are eligible for deduction under Sections 10A and 10AA. Similarly, gains from foreign exchange fluctuations directly linked to export sales are also eligible for deduction under Section 10A.

Cargo Motors (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

145 Taxmann.com 641 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

The disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, particularly Rule 8D(iii) for administrative expenses, should only consider investments that have actually yielded exempt income during the relevant assessment year. Section 14A empowers the Assessing Officer to determine expenditure related to income not forming part of total income.

Sobha Developers Ltd. v. DCIT

125 Taxmann.com 72 · 2021 · High Court

citing judgments

Disallowance under section 14A is a notional disallowance and cannot be added back while computing Book Profits under section 115JB for Minimum Alternate Tax purposes.

Tata Industries Ltd. v. ITO

181 TTJ 600 · 2016 · ITAT

citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Even if interest expenditure is considered, it cannot be solely attributed to earning exempt dividend income as investors also consider potential capital gains.

PCIT v. J.J. Glastronics (P.) Ltd.

139 Taxmann.com 375 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

Additions made under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, read with Rule 8D, cannot be considered for computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Act.

M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT

38 DTR 282 · 2010 · Reported

citing judgments

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act is not applicable to insurance businesses governed by specific provisions of Section 44 and Schedule 1. Profit on sale of investments by insurance companies is not taxable, especially after the deletion of sub-rule (b) of Rule 5 of the First Schedule.

PCIT v. Dipesh Lalchand Shah

143 Taxmann.com 419 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

Disallowance under section 14A cannot be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year. This applies even if the assessee has made investments in shares or has income from a partnership that is negative.

Judgments citing disallowance u/s 14A

25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range -6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3085/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

Rs.1,65,85,334/-. The main contention of the Ld. Representative of the revenue is that the CIT(A) has deleted the said disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D by ignoring the CBDT Circular No.5/2014 dated 11.02.2014. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has strongly ... expenses have been claimed by the assessee in its return of income. In our considered opinion, the entire disallowance u/s 14A of the Act amounting to Rs. 28,48,16,401/- ( including the suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 8,29,19,798) should be deleted since the Assessee has earned

ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. 25 Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2798/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

DCIT, CC- 8(4), Mumbai vs. Ashok R. Ruia (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6309/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Shailja Rai

Section 132

further submitted that in respect to the AY 2006-07 and A.Y. 2007-08, the addition was made on the tune of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 3D. In this regards, it is submitted that the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D is nothing but the disallowance on the basis of change

M/S. Shri Satyanandji Tradecom P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the above appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the matter is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer

ITA 1819/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Bagchi

Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)

addition of Rs. 2,51,221/- (out of the total additions made by the A.O. at Rs.26,61,809/-) on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act read with Rule 8D and he failed to consider and appreciate the detailed submissions made before him. 2.3 That

Promise Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1051/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1051/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4852/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) Promise Securities Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Ito Ward-13(1)(4) 202 Hemlok Apartment 87 Room No.216-B, Aayakar Vs. Kilachand Path, S.V. Road, Bhawan, M.K. Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400067. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp6634N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Mehul Jain (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2012- 13 & 2013-14. Ita. No.1051/Mum/2017 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 23.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68

consideration, the assessee company invested an amount of Rs.5,06,29,274/- and earned tax-free income of Rs.14,949/-. No disallowance u/s 14A was offered, therefore, the AO assessed the expenses to earn the exempt income to the tune of Rs.2,35,004/- by assessing

Mr.M J Aravind, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 222/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 48Section 57

India. 2. Difference in credits made to capital account. 3. Interest income from Woodstock Ambience Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 of 24 4. The disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D. 3. Hence it was proposed to reopen the assessment recording the following reasons:- 1. Interest income of Rs.17,63,930/- from Woodstock ... required to examine/verify, remedial action to be token if any difference found and the same has to be brought to tax. 4. The disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D is as under: Investments in Equity Shares 20,11,77,498 Investments in Mutual Fund 17,18,92,695 IIFCL

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as directed above

ITA 4675/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr DRFor Respondent: Shri

Section 14ASection 35

advertisement. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A) erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D to Rs. 58,23,458/-, without appreciating the facts of the case. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances

M/S. Syndicate Bank, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Udupi

In the result, grounds 6 and 9 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1885/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. S.Ananthan, CA & Smt.Lalitha Rameshwaran, CAFor Respondent: Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

details of the disallowances / additions made by the A.O. are as follows:- Sl. Particulars Amount in Rs. No. 1. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D 64,59,79,000 2. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(viia) 936,90,65,332 3. Disallowance u/s ... appellate authority. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee in respect of following issues:- Sl. Particulars Amount in Rs. No. 1. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D 64,59,79,000 2. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) 87,91,40,567 3. Provision for wage revision

DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industrial Ivestment & Holdings Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 803/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

find any infirmity in the impugned order, in this regard. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 stand dismissed. 10. So far as the disallowance u/s 14A is concerned, it is undisputed fact that the assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs.11 Lacs only out of which it has already offered suo-moto disallowance

Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 7035/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7035/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिधम/ Acit-5(3)(2) M/S. Tolani Shipping Co. Room No.573, Aayakar Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, 5Th Floor, M. K. 10-A, Bakhtawar, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact4127C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Mishra (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Satya Prakash सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.08.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -58 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Addition Of Rs.30,96,52,860/- Made By The Ao/Tpo To Rs.12,00,43,750/- On Account Of Profit Split Method, Ignoring That The Tpo Rejected A.Y.2008-09 The Cup Method After Giving Detailed Reasons In The Order Passed U/S 92Ca(3).

For Appellant: Shri Satya PrakashFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra (DR)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 50Section 92C

assessee. The assessee also received the exempt income and made investment to receive the dividend income. The assessee did not offer any disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D. Thereafter, the AO calculated the expenditure to earn the exempt income in view of the provisions u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D which ... mentioned below:- CALCULATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A A Interest debited in P & L 203,431,298 Account (referred as „A‟ As on 01-04.2007 As on 31-03-2008 Average Value B Value of Investment, 1,325,333,524 1,748,571,348 1,536,952,436 income from which

DCIT Circle-2 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Foods and Inns Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6862/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 14ASection 40Section 43(5)

above it is clear that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court also has uphold the decision that when no dividend income is claimed, disallowance u/s 14A is not permissible. Hence, the authorities below's 'reliance upon the Special Bench decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. and the CBBT Circular

Dy CIT Circle-2 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Foods and Inns Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6860/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 14ASection 40Section 43(5)

Dy CIT Circle-2 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Foods and Inns Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6859/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 14ASection 40Section 43(5)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Tally Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 1543/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.RFor Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.R

Section 14a

erred in not considering the CBDT circular No.5/2014, which made it clear that earning of exempt income was not mandatory for disallowance u/s 14a of the IT Act?” 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of development and marketing of accounting and business management software. It filed its return ... noticed that the assessee has made long term investment in the equity shares/mutual funds. He noticed that the assessee has not made any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. When questioned, the assessee submitted that it did not receive any dividend income and hence, no disallowance is called for. However

Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1588/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ramakrishna, CA

Section 10Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 153B

earn capital gains, and the strategic investments made by the appellant in its subsidiary/SPVs is not to be reckoned for disallowance u/s 14A rwr 8D. 9. For the above and any other grounds that may be urged and presented at the time of hearing of the appeal, the appellant humbly ... Total claimed as exempt income Rs.2,01,04,499 6. The Ld.AR further submitted that the quantum of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. In support of the proposition, he also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case

Shel Mrpl Aviation Fules and Services Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3216/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14A

submitted that the issues involved in the appeal are as follows:- i) Interest for delayed remittance of Service Tax – Ground No. 3 ii) Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act – Ground No. 4 iii) Disallowance of provision for signing incentive - Ground No. 5 iv) Professional charges as pre-operative expenses - Ground ... view that it would be just an appropriate to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remand the issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act for fresh consideration by the CIT(A) after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee on the admissibility of additional evidence

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Gmr Hyderabad International Airport Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 633/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sunil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 40

assessee in default”. In such a scenario, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) does not have any application. It is ordered accordingly. DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT : (ASST.YEAR 2010-2011 TO 2013-2014) 6. For the assessment years 2010-2011 to 2013-2014, the assessee had earned exempt ... with its subsidiaries. The assessee while filing the returns of income for assessment years 2010-2011 to 2013-2014, had made suo moto disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. However, the A.O. made further disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. On further appeal, the CIT(A) granted substantial relief

M/S.Gmr Hyderabad International Airport Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

ITA 620/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sunil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 40

M/S. Gms Hyderabad International Airport Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

ITA 604/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sunil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 40

M/S. Gmr Hyderabad International Airport Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

ITA 603/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sunil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 40