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 Rule 8D, limits disallowance to exempt income.

        M/s. Anjaneya Cold Storage Limited Versus ACIT, Circle-1 (1), New Delhi

        M/s. Anjaneya Cold Storage Limited Versus ACIT, Circle-1 (1), New Delhi - Tmi Issues Involved:
        1. Disallowance under Section 14A by invoking Rule 8D.
        2. Incorrect presumption of investment in mutual funds.
        3. Incorrect suo moto disallowance by the assessee.
        4. Calculation of average value of investments.
        5. Disallowance exceeding the exempt income.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Disallowance under Section 14A by invoking Rule 8D:
        The primary issue revolves around the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act by invoking Rule 8D. The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not record dissatisfaction with the suo moto disallowance of Rs. 6,021 made by the assessee, which is a prerequisite for invoking Rule 8D. The Tribunal found that the AO did record his dissatisfaction, stating that the assessee must have incurred expenses related to the investment in mutual funds and other related activities, thus justifying the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.

        2. Incorrect Presumption of Investment in Mutual Funds:
        The assessee contended that the AO's dissatisfaction was based on the incorrect presumption that the assessee had invested in mutual funds during the year under consideration. The Tribunal noted that while the AO did mention mutual fund investments, he also referred to the use of resources and expenditure related to maintaining and switching investments. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the contention that the dissatisfaction was based solely on incorrect facts, stating that one factual mistake does not invalidate the other reasons for dissatisfaction recorded by the AO.

        3. Incorrect Suo Moto Disallowance by the Assessee:
        The assessee argued that the suo moto disallowance of Rs. 6,021 was correct and should not have been disregarded by the AO. The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision, noting that the AO had valid reasons to be dissatisfied with the assessee's claim and to invoke Rule 8D for a higher disallowance.

        4. Calculation of Average Value of Investments:
        The assessee contended that the AO should have considered only the investment of Rs. 1,04,19,272, on which exempt income was earned, rather than the average value of all investments. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in isolation but focused on the overall correctness of the AO's approach in applying Rule 8D.

        5. Disallowance Exceeding the Exempt Income:
        The assessee argued that the disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income of Rs. 6,62,660, citing the Delhi High Court's decision in Cheminvest Ltd. The Tribunal agreed with this contention, stating that the disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to Rs. 6,62,660, in line with the precedent set by the Delhi High Court.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, upholding the AO's application of Rule 8D but restricting the disallowance to the amount of exempt income earned, i.e., Rs. 6,62,660. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 25th October 2017.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found