← All Phrases

“strategic investment”

DisallowancesSection 14ASection 14A426 judgments

The decision most relied on for strategic investment is Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (402 ITR 640), cited in 1,596 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on strategic investment

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
402 ITR 640 · 2018 · Supreme Court
1,596
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A is not automatic and requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D. Only investments yielding exempt income are considered for disallowance, irrespective of their strategic nature.

Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. ACIT
65 SOT 86 · 2014 · ITAT
74
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) does not apply to long-term investments, including those in subsidiary/group concerns or strategic investments, and such investments should be excluded from the calculation.

Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT & Excess Profits Tax
34 ITR 368 · 1958 · Supreme Court
57
citing judgments

Investments made by a holding company in its subsidiary can be considered a business activity, allowing related business expenditures to be deducted and not disallowed.

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.

Gareware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. ACIT
46 Taxmann.com 18 · 2014 · ITAT
22
citing judgments

Strategic investments in wholly-owned subsidiaries are to be excluded when calculating the disallowance under Section 14A, which pertains to expenses incurred in relation to exempt income. This exclusion applies even when these investments are made for holding a controlling stake rather than for earning dividends.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 v. Enrich Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd.
148 Taxmann.com 26 · 2023 · High Court
20
citing judgments

The Delhi High Court confirms that when shares are issued at a premium to investors, the valuation of such shares must be assessed based on established methods like the NAV or DCF method, and the revenue cannot arbitrarily determine the fair market value.

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited v. JCIT
36 SOT 348 · 2010 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

Investments on which no exempt income was received during the year, and investments in subsidiaries considered strategic, are excluded from average investment calculations for determining disallowance of interest expenses.

366 ITR 505 (Bom), CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power
239 ITR 735 · High Court
13
citing judgments

Investments made by an assessee are presumed to be out of interest-free funds, and no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no dividend income is received from such strategic investments.

Judgments citing strategic investment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Raymond Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4082/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23Section 40A(2)(b)

should be taken for the purpose of determination of disallowance u/r 8D(2)(ii) of the IT Rules. The CIT(A) further directed that strategic investment and investments made from the interest free funds should be excluded from the total investments and only the balance investment i.e.,₹.1892.19 lakhs should ... submitted that while in light of the recent landmark decision of Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investments Ltd, argument of excluding strategic investments has been done away. However, for the purpose of determining average value of investments, the learned AR drew the attention of Hon'ble Delhi High Court

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Raymond Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4073/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23Section 40A(2)(b)

should be taken for the purpose of determination of disallowance u/r 8D(2)(ii) of the IT Rules. The CIT(A) further directed that strategic investment and investments made from the interest free funds should be excluded from the total investments and only the balance investment i.e.,₹.1892.19 lakhs should ... submitted that while in light of the recent landmark decision of Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investments Ltd, argument of excluding strategic investments has been done away. However, for the purpose of determining average value of investments, the learned AR drew the attention of Hon'ble Delhi High Court

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Raymond Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4072/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23Section 40A(2)(b)

should be taken for the purpose of determination of disallowance u/r 8D(2)(ii) of the IT Rules. The CIT(A) further directed that strategic investment and investments made from the interest free funds should be excluded from the total investments and only the balance investment i.e.,₹.1892.19 lakhs should ... submitted that while in light of the recent landmark decision of Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investments Ltd, argument of excluding strategic investments has been done away. However, for the purpose of determining average value of investments, the learned AR drew the attention of Hon'ble Delhi High Court

JCIT(OSD)-10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Jyothy Laboratories Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3876/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Solgy Jose T. KottaramFor Respondent: J.D. Mistry
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 229Section 80I

erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 14A of Rs.328,92,328/ ignoring the facts that the assessee has made strategic investment and the facts of this case is similar to the facts of the case Maxopp Investment Ltd in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that ... disallowance u/s 14A is applicable to expenditure relating to exempt income from strategic investment in subsidiaries. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not considering CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 wherein it has been clarified that

DCIT-10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Jyothy Laboratories Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3875/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Solgy Jose T. KottaramFor Respondent: J.D. Mistry
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 229Section 80I

erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 14A of Rs.328,92,328/ ignoring the facts that the assessee has made strategic investment and the facts of this case is similar to the facts of the case Maxopp Investment Ltd in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that ... disallowance u/s 14A is applicable to expenditure relating to exempt income from strategic investment in subsidiaries. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not considering CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 wherein it has been clarified that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Raymond Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23Section 40A(2)(b)

should be taken for the purpose of determination of disallowance u/r 8D(2)(ii) of the IT Rules. The CIT(A) further directed that strategic investment and investments made from the interest free funds should be excluded from the total investments and only the balance investment i.e.,₹.1892.19 lakhs should ... submitted that while in light of the recent landmark decision of Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investments Ltd, argument of excluding strategic investments has been done away. However, for the purpose of determining average value of investments, the learned AR drew the attention of Hon'ble Delhi High Court

DCIT, Chennai vs. Siva Ventures Ltd., Chennai

The appeal of the revenue stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1417/CHNY/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L.Kapthuama (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)

Learned CIT(A) and Learned AO have erred in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that the loans were utilised for making strategic investments into wholly owned subsidiary companies outside India, which was with the intention of harnessing long term benefit in the form of increase in business ... before us, the cross-appeals are disposed-off as under. 2. Transfer Pricing Adjustments 2.1 The assessee, as an investment organization, seeks to make strategic investments in wholly owned subsidiaries. The assessee advanced funds to two of its Associated Enterprises (AE) i.e., Avis Ventures Ltd., Mauritius (AVL) and Daleworld

Siva Industries and Holdings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal of the revenue stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1390/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L.Kapthuama (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)

Learned CIT(A) and Learned AO have erred in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that the loans were utilised for making strategic investments into wholly owned subsidiary companies outside India, which was with the intention of harnessing long term benefit in the form of increase in business ... before us, the cross-appeals are disposed-off as under. 2. Transfer Pricing Adjustments 2.1 The assessee, as an investment organization, seeks to make strategic investments in wholly owned subsidiaries. The assessee advanced funds to two of its Associated Enterprises (AE) i.e., Avis Ventures Ltd., Mauritius (AVL) and Daleworld

Academy of Higher Education, Trichy vs. DCIT Circle 1(2), Trichy

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1973/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L Kapthuama (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 250(6)

Holdings Limited w.e.f. 01.04.2011 vide order dated 22.08.2013 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The assessee is stated to be engaged in making strategic investments in real estate space and having objective to invest in large projects both in commercial and residential space. The assessee’s case was reopened ... factually incorrect and baseless. 2.5 The learned CIT(A) and AO have failed to appreciate that the appellant is not in the business of strategic investments in realty market and therefore the intention of advancing money to SICCL was with a view to acquire the land for development for business

Siva Industries and Holdings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1393/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L Kapthuama (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 250(6)

Holdings Limited w.e.f. 01.04.2011 vide order dated 22.08.2013 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The assessee is stated to be engaged in making strategic investments in real estate space and having objective to invest in large projects both in commercial and residential space. The assessee’s case was reopened ... factually incorrect and baseless. 2.5 The learned CIT(A) and AO have failed to appreciate that the appellant is not in the business of strategic investments in realty market and therefore the intention of advancing money to SICCL was with a view to acquire the land for development for business

Siva Industries and Holdings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1392/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L Kapthuama (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 250(6)

Holdings Limited w.e.f. 01.04.2011 vide order dated 22.08.2013 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The assessee is stated to be engaged in making strategic investments in real estate space and having objective to invest in large projects both in commercial and residential space. The assessee’s case was reopened ... factually incorrect and baseless. 2.5 The learned CIT(A) and AO have failed to appreciate that the appellant is not in the business of strategic investments in realty market and therefore the intention of advancing money to SICCL was with a view to acquire the land for development for business

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 292/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

2406/Mum/2006). The next line of argument of the ld AR is that the investment by the assessee in the wholly owned subsidiary is a strategic investment for increasing business, sales and profit, and therefore the assessee, has a deep interest in the operations of its subsidiaries. Any support to them

Jsw Holdings Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for assessment year 2010 – 11 and appeal for assessment year 2013 – 14 is partly allowed

ITA 2535/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya, DR
Section 14Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 254

matter back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer directing the learned Assessing Officer to consider the explanation of assessee with respect to strategic investment. Consequent to that, the learned Assessing Officer reiterated the disallowance originally made by order dated21/11/2016 passed u/s 143 (3) read with ITA No.2534 & 2535/Mum/2019 ... same was challenged before the learned CIT (A), who held that as the ITAT has set aside the order to consider the ground of strategic investment for working out disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, the above ground has no longer need to be followed in view

Jsw Holdings Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for assessment year 2010 – 11 and appeal for assessment year 2013 – 14 is partly allowed

ITA 2534/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya, DR
Section 14Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 254

matter back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer directing the learned Assessing Officer to consider the explanation of assessee with respect to strategic investment. Consequent to that, the learned Assessing Officer reiterated the disallowance originally made by order dated21/11/2016 passed u/s 143 (3) read with ITA No.2534 & 2535/Mum/2019 ... same was challenged before the learned CIT (A), who held that as the ITAT has set aside the order to consider the ground of strategic investment for working out disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, the above ground has no longer need to be followed in view

Sahana Builders Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) 52, Mumbai

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

ITA 2217/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Sahana Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., 402, Plot No.54, Sagar Avenue, S.V. Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400058. Pan: Aahcs4782P ...... Appellant Vs. Cit(A)-52, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Dy.Cit-4(2), Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Appellant Vs. M/S Sahana Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., 402, Plot No.54B, Junction Of S.V. Road & Lallubhai Park, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400058. Pan: Aahcs4782P ...... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Amit Bothra & Ms. Manish Chandak, Ar Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash- Sr. Dr M/S Sahana Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Bothra &For Respondent: Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash- Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

table the money received from M/s Pawnsut Dewellers Pvt. Ltd were used entirely for repaying old loans and strategic investment in subsidiary/associated companies. Ld.CIT(A) relied upon various case laws cited by the assessee and allowed the claim of the assessee except loan given to a sister concern M/s Nirmal ... along with table furnished therein. The fact that the investment is being made in Nirmal Sahana Builders Pvt. Ltd. is a strategic investment and the same is for a company in same line of business as the assessee is. This fact is not under challenge. Further, despite of assessee

Jt. CIT(OSD)-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Tata Capital Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by Revenue is dismissed appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2109/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 7060/मुं/ 2017 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 1515/मुं/ 2019("न.व. 2015-16) Tata Capital Limited, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai – 400 013 Pan:Aadcp-9147-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(3)(1), Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 61/मुं/ 2018 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 2109/मुं/ 2019("न.व. 2015-16) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(3)(1),/Jcit (Osd) 2(3)(1) Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Tata Capital Limited, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai – 400 013 Pan:Aadcp-9147-P ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane
Section 14ASection 56(2)(viia)

issue." "On the circumstances and facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to exclude strategic investment from the total investment for computing disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii), without considering that the assessee has earned dividend income from ... strategic investment which were claimed as exempt." "On the circumstances and facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting deemed rent on the Thane property of the assessee, without considering the fact that once the assessee got the occupancy right of the property

Tata Capital Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by Revenue is dismissed appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1515/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 7060/मुं/ 2017 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 1515/मुं/ 2019("न.व. 2015-16) Tata Capital Limited, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai – 400 013 Pan:Aadcp-9147-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(3)(1), Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 61/मुं/ 2018 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 2109/मुं/ 2019("न.व. 2015-16) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(3)(1),/Jcit (Osd) 2(3)(1) Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Tata Capital Limited, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai – 400 013 Pan:Aadcp-9147-P ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane
Section 14ASection 56(2)(viia)

issue." "On the circumstances and facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to exclude strategic investment from the total investment for computing disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii), without considering that the assessee has earned dividend income from ... strategic investment which were claimed as exempt." "On the circumstances and facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting deemed rent on the Thane property of the assessee, without considering the fact that once the assessee got the occupancy right of the property

Tata Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by Revenue is dismissed appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7060/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 7060/मुं/ 2017 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 1515/मुं/ 2019("न.व. 2015-16) Tata Capital Limited, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai – 400 013 Pan:Aadcp-9147-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(3)(1), Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 61/मुं/ 2018 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 2109/मुं/ 2019("न.व. 2015-16) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(3)(1),/Jcit (Osd) 2(3)(1) Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Tata Capital Limited, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai – 400 013 Pan:Aadcp-9147-P ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane
Section 14ASection 56(2)(viia)

issue." "On the circumstances and facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to exclude strategic investment from the total investment for computing disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii), without considering that the assessee has earned dividend income from ... strategic investment which were claimed as exempt." "On the circumstances and facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting deemed rent on the Thane property of the assessee, without considering the fact that once the assessee got the occupancy right of the property

Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 404/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 404/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sasken Technologies Ltd., (Formerly Known As The Deputy Sasken Communication Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 139/25, Domlur Circle – 6(1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs6424R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 15-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2017 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General:- The Learned Ao & The Drp Erred In Passing The Order / Directions In The Manner Passed By Them. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 133(6)Section 2(24)Section 92BSection 92C

owned by such companies in the respective geographical locations. With specific reference to Sasken Finland OY. Sasken Inc, USA, was set up to make strategic investments in USA and other overseas markets. Admittedly, the Ld. AO recorded that subsidiaries of assessee is working as full-fledged entrepreneurs in USA, Finland

Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 2 (3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 217/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
Section 115Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 80G

find that the investments made in subsidiary companies for the purpose of holding dominant control over the same or for the purpose of strategic investments would also have to be considered for the purpose of working out the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the light of decision