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

        Assessee's Appeal Allowed for Disallowance Exclusion, Revenue's Appeal Dismissed on Service Tax (1)

        M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range–2 (2) (2), Mumbai And Vice-Versa

        M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range–2 (2) (2), Mumbai And Vice-Versa - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii).
        2. Addition of service tax to trading receipts under Section 145A.
        3. Disallowance of professional/consultancy fees under Section 37(1).

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii):

        The only issue arising in the present appeal relates to disallowance made under section 14A r/w rule 8D(2)(iii).

        For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 29th September 2008, declaring income of Rs. 76,02,02,481. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee earned exempt income and disallowed Rs. 27,78,869 under section 14A. However, the AO computed disallowance applying rule 8D(2) at Rs. 1,88,00,242, comprising Rs. 87,96,002 as proportionate interest expenditure and Rs. 1,00,04,240 as administrative expenditure. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the interest expenditure disallowance, noting sufficient interest-free funds for investments, a decision not contested by the Department. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially agreed with excluding strategic investments from the average value of investment for computing disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii), but only for old investments, not incremental ones. The assessee argued that incremental strategic investments and share application money should also be excluded, citing various judicial precedents.

        The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, directing the AO to verify if the incremental investments were strategic and exclude them from the average value of investments for disallowance computation. It also agreed that share application money, not yielding exempt income, should be excluded. The Tribunal emphasized that investments not generating exempt income during the relevant financial year should be excluded from the average value of investments for disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii), as supported by decisions from the Delhi High Court and the Tribunal's Special Bench.

        In the result, assessee’s appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

        2. Addition of service tax to trading receipts under Section 145A:

        In grounds no.2 and 3, the Revenue challenged the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition of service tax to the trading receipt by invoking provisions of section 145A of the Act.

        The AO added Rs. 2,45,57,686 to the trading receipts, treating service tax as part of the trading receipt. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted this addition, referencing the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's favor for the previous year, upheld by the Jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal found the Revenue's reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v/s Thirumalai Swamy Naidu and Sons distinguishable, as it pertained to CST refund as revenue receipt, not service tax as part of trading receipts. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's grounds.

        In the result, Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.

        3. Disallowance of professional/consultancy fees under Section 37(1):

        In ground no.4, the assessee challenged disallowance of expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,77,99,929.

        The AO disallowed Rs. 1,77,99,929 paid to Kotak Mahindra Bank for raising funds for Met Life India Insurance Co., not related to the assessee's business. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this disallowance. The assessee argued that investment in other companies was part of its business objects, relying on judicial precedents. The Tribunal noted the need to examine the primary objects of the assessee company as per its memorandum and articles of association to decide the allowability of the expenditure. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination, considering the company's primary objects and judicial precedents.

        In the result, assessee’s appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

        Summary of Appeals:

        Assessee’s Appeal in ITA no.3739/Mum./2015 is allowed for statistical purposes; Revenue’s Appeal in ITA no.3523/ Mum./2015 is dismissed; Assessee’s Appeal in ITA no.3740/Mum./ 2015 is allowed for statistical purposes; Revenue’s Appeal in ITA no. 3524/Mum./2015 is dismissed; Assessee’s Appeal in ITA no.3741/ Mum./2015 is allowed for statistical purposes; Revenue’s Appeal in ITA no.3525/Mum./2015 is dismissed.

        Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.02.2018

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found