BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

13 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 8D(2)(ii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai83Kolkata15Ahmedabad14Delhi13Bangalore13Visakhapatnam11Chennai7Jaipur4Indore2Hyderabad2Cuttack1Pune1Chandigarh1

Key Topics

Section 14A23Disallowance13Section 14212Addition to Income12Section 36(1)(ii)8Section 408Section 143(3)6Depreciation6Section 12A5

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 3061/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Section 115
Section 324
Exemption4
ITA 2677/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: Disposed
ITAT Delhi
11 Mar 2016
AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

FIITJEE LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed partly

ITA 334/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate; &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 153A

ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, the appellant had submitted that it had incurred no expenditure which has any relation with the earning of any exempt income i.e. dividend income, hence no imaginary or notional expenses can be disallowed under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2) of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved from

FIITJEE LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed partly

ITA 333/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate; &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 153A

ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, the appellant had submitted that it had incurred no expenditure which has any relation with the earning of any exempt income i.e. dividend income, hence no imaginary or notional expenses can be disallowed under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2) of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved from

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CB RICHARD ELLIS SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 709/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain and Piyush Kumar Kamal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36(1)(ii)

Charitable Trust 308 ITR 161 vi) That burden was upon the Assessing Officer and not on the assessee to establish that, what had been paid by way of commission would have been payable by way of dividend, which on the facts of appellant remains undischarged vii) That since there existed no statutory requirement under the Income

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.B. RICHARD ELLIS SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 775/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain and Piyush Kumar Kamal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36(1)(ii)

Charitable Trust 308 ITR 161 vi) That burden was upon the Assessing Officer and not on the assessee to establish that, what had been paid by way of commission would have been payable by way of dividend, which on the facts of appellant remains undischarged vii) That since there existed no statutory requirement under the Income

SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARKS OF INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2605/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Years: 2009-10

Section 11Section 12ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(15)

charitable organization under section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The upholding of the disallowance under section 14A of the expenses of Rs.2,50,394/- by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is unjust and not in accordance with the law in force. 3. The appellant craves to leave, alter, amend, add, delete and modify the grounds of appeal

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3569/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Years: 2009-10

Section 11Section 12ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(15)

charitable organization under section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The upholding of the disallowance under section 14A of the expenses of Rs.2,50,394/- by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is unjust and not in accordance with the law in force. 3. The appellant craves to leave, alter, amend, add, delete and modify the grounds of appeal

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4342/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Renu Amitabh, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

section 14A of the Act cannot be invoked. 3. That learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case in confirming the net disallowance of Rs. 26,05,808/- (i.e. after allowing depreciation @ 15% on gross disallowance of Rs. 28,17,090/- which works out to Rs. 2

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3846/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Renu Amitabh, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

section 14A of the Act cannot be invoked. 3. That learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case in confirming the net disallowance of Rs. 26,05,808/- (i.e. after allowing depreciation @ 15% on gross disallowance of Rs. 28,17,090/- which works out to Rs. 2

ACIT, MEERUT vs. SH. ASHISH GUPTA, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 328/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 48

2) of the Act read with rule 8D, the A.O. did not get jurisdiction to invoke Rule 8D. On these facts, the assessee has argued that the A.O. did not enter jurisdiction to invoke rule 8D. 3 Ashish Gupta 7. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has relied upon the judicial pronouncements in the Case of Principal Commissioner

SH. VIRENDER KHANNA,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 908/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aasish Mohanty, Sr. DR

2(ii) and (iii) are against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.35,974/- out of Security expenses and Rs.39,894/- 3 out of Electricity and water expenses. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee was living with his family at M-62, Saket, New Delhi, which premises was used as office- cum-residence

THE AJAY G. PIRAMAL FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 808/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 808/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 The Ajay G. Piramal Foundation, Vs Ddit(E), 320, Tower-B, 11, Dlf Tower, Trust Circle-Iv, Jasola, New Delhi-110025 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabtt1789N

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Agrawal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Lalit Kishore, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 14Section 14ASection 251

Trust Circle - IV, New Delhi, (“the A.O.”) of not granting deduction of interest expense amounting to Rs. 15,50,137/- paid on loan borrowed by the Appellant on the alleged ground that there is no direct nexus between the loans borrowed and loans given by the Appellant. 2 The Ajay G. Piramal Foundation 2 The Appellant prays that the deduction