FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance by following sub-section (2) of section 14A and rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules. 6. So far as the disallowance

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance by following sub-section (2) of section 14A and rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules. 6. So far as the disallowance

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance by following sub-section (2) of section 14A and rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules. 6. So far as the disallowance

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance by following sub-section (2) of section 14A and rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules. 6. So far as the disallowance

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance under section 144, Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules provides for the mechanism to determine the quantum of such

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance under section 144, Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules provides for the mechanism to determine the quantum of such

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance under section 144, Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules provides for the mechanism to determine the quantum of such

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance under section 144, Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules provides for the mechanism to determine the quantum of such

CONDIS INDIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 14A r.w. rule 8D corresponding to such exempted income. Thus, the AO invoked the provisions of s. 14 r.w. rule 8D and made disallowance

CONDIS INDIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 14A r.w. rule 8D corresponding to such exempted income. Thus, the AO invoked the provisions of s. 14 r.w. rule 8D and made disallowance

CONDIS INDIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 14A r.w. rule 8D corresponding to such exempted income. Thus, the AO invoked the provisions of s. 14 r.w. rule 8D and made disallowance

VAM GROUP HI-TECH ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Vam Group Hi-Tech Engineering Dcit, Circle - 1 Pvt. Ltd. Alappuzha X/685, Vam House, Vs. Pathirappally P.O., Alappuzha 688521 [Pan: Aaacv6606N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

8D be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed. The window for disallowance is indicated in section

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM vs. HLL LIFECARE LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the Special Bench decision in the case of Cheminvest

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be invoked in view of the fact that there are investments which will give tax free income. In response to the queries of the A.O., the assessee responded that during the year under consideration it has not earned any exempt income, and hence, no disallowance

MUTHOOT BANKERS,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A r.w. rule 8D disallowance(s) amounting to Rs.88,68,993/- and Rs. 96,41,136/-; assessment year-wise

MUTHOOT BANKERS,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A r.w. rule 8D disallowance(s) amounting to Rs.88,68,993/- and Rs. 96,41,136/-; assessment year-wise

M/S.KERALA CARS P.LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kerala Cars Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Corporate Circle-1(2) 508-A, Illakkattu Building Kochi Edappally, Kunamthai Vs. Kochi 682024 [Pan: Aabck4746M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") r.w. rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 amounting to Rs. 11,94,700/- only. 3. In the present case, the assessee has made investments in the shares of various companies which were capable of generating exempted income, but the assessee has not made any disallowance

SUD CHEMIE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ALUVA vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), ERNAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 14A is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to the exempt income. This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount. In this case, admittedly, the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.4,000 from investment in shares of Canara Bank, whereas the A.O. has determined

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

section 32(1)(ii) with effect from 01.10.2016 also supports the deduction claimed by the assessee. The amendment, no doubt, was introduced with effect from 01.10.2016, is a clarificatory amendment. The decisions relied on by the assessee are directly on the point and we are in full agreement with the view taken by the Madras and Karnataka High Courts