Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal upholds Rs. 304,622 addition under Income Tax Rules, rejects assessee's arguments.

        Parasnath Tech Garments (P) Ltd. Versus ACIT-VI, Aaykar Bhawan, Kanpur.

        Parasnath Tech Garments (P) Ltd. Versus ACIT-VI, Aaykar Bhawan, Kanpur. - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Confirmation of addition of Rs. 304,622 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules.
        2. Justification of non-applicability of Section 14A.
        3. Whether satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 14A(2).
        4. Applicability of judicial precedents cited by the assessee.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Confirmation of Addition under Section 14A Read with Rule 8D:
        The primary issue in this appeal is the confirmation of the addition of Rs. 304,622 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee argued that the investments were made out of internal accruals and not from borrowed funds. The assessee's financial position indicated sufficient own funds to cover the investments, and the working capital loans were specifically for business purposes, not for investments. The assessee also claimed that no exempt income was earned during the year, thus disallowance under Section 14A should not apply.

        2. Justification of Non-Applicability of Section 14A:
        The assessee provided detailed submissions, including financial statements and judicial precedents, to justify the non-applicability of Section 14A. The assessee cited various judgments, such as C.I.T. vs. Metalman Auto Private Limited, C.I.T. vs. Reliance Industries Limited, and others, arguing that if no expenditure was incurred or there was no nexus between expenditure and investment, disallowance under Section 14A does not arise. Additionally, the assessee highlighted that no exempt income was earned during the year, referencing cases like M/S. Shivam Motors (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and CIT vs. HOLCIM INDIA P. LTD., which supported the contention that in the absence of tax-free income, corresponding expenditure could not be disallowed.

        3. Whether Satisfaction was Recorded by the AO under Section 14A(2):
        The AO noted that in AY 2009-10, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition under Section 14A and directed the computation of disallowance of interest under Rule 8D. The AO recorded satisfaction that the entire investment of Rs. 170 lakh was made on the strength of credit receipts in the assessee's bank account from packing credit/post-shipment credit. The Tribunal found that the AO had recorded satisfaction as required under Section 14A(2), and the basis of satisfaction was also provided.

        4. Applicability of Judicial Precedents Cited by the Assessee:
        The Tribunal examined the judicial precedents cited by the assessee. It found that the judgments relied upon by the assessee, such as those in the cases of Shivam Motors and others, were not applicable because they did not consider the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Rajendra Prasad Moody, which held that actual receipt of dividend is not necessary for disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal also noted that the judgment in the case of Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation vs. CIT was before the insertion of Section 14A and thus not applicable post-insertion.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal concluded that the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was in accordance with Rule 8D and Section 14A of the Act. None of the contentions raised by the assessee were found to be meritorious, and the judicial precedents cited were not applicable in the present case. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found