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 Partly Allows Appeal: Orders Deletion of Rs. 2.49 Crore Disallowance for MAT, Confirms Rs. 490.91 Lakh Disallowance.

        Tata Investment Corporation Ltd. Versus ACIT-2 (3), Mumbai

        Tata Investment Corporation Ltd. Versus ACIT-2 (3), Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Disallowance under Rule 8D for MAT computation under section 115JB.
        2. Exclusion of investments without dividend income while computing disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D.
        3. Allocation of own funds versus borrowed funds for investments.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Disallowance under Rule 8D for MAT computation under section 115JB:
        The appellant challenged the disallowance made under Rule 8D in the MAT computation under section 115JB. The appellant argued that the disallowance under Rule 8D should not apply for MAT computation. The Tribunal referred to the Special Bench decision in ACIT v. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd., which held that computation under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) should be made without resorting to the computation under section 14A read with Rule 8D. Only those investments yielding exempt income during the year should be considered. Following this precedent, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 2,49,38,699 made under section 14A while calculating book profit under section 115JB.

        2. Exclusion of investments without dividend income while computing disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D:
        The appellant contended that investments which did not yield any dividend income should be excluded while computing disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had received exempt income during the year and thus, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was applicable. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to exclude the investments that did not yield any exempt income during the year while computing the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D.

        3. Allocation of own funds versus borrowed funds for investments:
        The appellant argued that its own funds exceeded the total investments, implying that investments were made from its own funds rather than borrowed funds. The Tribunal referred to the Bombay High Court decision in CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd., which established the presumption that if own funds exceed investments, it should be presumed that investments are made from own funds. Applying this principle, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the disallowance of Rs. 50,45,000 made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) in the normal computation of income.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal provided a mixed verdict:
        - Deleted the disallowance of Rs. 2,49,38,699 made under section 14A for MAT computation under section 115JB.
        - Directed the AO to exclude investments without exempt income while computing disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D.
        - Deleted the disallowance of Rs. 50,45,000 under Rule 8D(2)(ii) in the normal computation, confirming the disallowance of Rs. 490.91 lacs under Rule 8D(2)(iii).

        Final Order:
        The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal ordered the deletion of certain disallowances while confirming others, based on the principles established in relevant case laws. The decision was pronounced in open court on 09/02/2018.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found