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 rules in favor of assessee, finding AO's order not erroneous.

        Aditya Birla Retail Ltd. Versus Principle CIT-9, Mumbai

        Aditya Birla Retail Ltd. Versus Principle CIT-9, Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Invocation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT).
        2. Direction by PCIT to modify the assessment order considering investments directly out of borrowed funds.
        3. Direction by PCIT to make proportionate disallowance on account of interest expenditure on borrowed funds used for mutual fund investments.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Invocation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT):
        - The assessee challenged the invocation of Section 263 by the PCIT, arguing that both pre-requisites (assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue) must be satisfied for Section 263 to be invoked.
        - The assessee contended that it had furnished the requisite information and the Assessing Officer (AO) had completed the assessment after considering all the facts, hence the assessment order was not erroneous.
        - The Tribunal noted that during the assessment, the AO had examined the issue of disallowance under Section 14A and after receiving a detailed reply from the assessee, made no disallowance.
        - The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that both conditions (erroneous and prejudicial to revenue) must co-exist for Section 263 to be invoked.
        - It was concluded that the AO had adopted a possible view, and the order was not erroneous. Therefore, the invocation of Section 263 was not justified.

        2. Direction by PCIT to modify the assessment order considering investments directly out of borrowed funds:
        - The PCIT directed the AO to modify the assessment order to consider investments worth Rs. 560.85 crores directly out of borrowed funds for computing average investments under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules.
        - The assessee argued that considering these investments for computing average investments would result in double disallowance of proportionate interest attributable to the said investments.
        - The Tribunal noted that the assessee had already made a suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 23.40 crores under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D and that the AO had accepted this computation.
        - It was observed that the assessee had not received any exempt income during the year, and as per judicial precedents, no disallowance under Section 14A should be made in such cases.
        - The Tribunal held that the AO’s order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the AO had considered the material and adopted a possible view.

        3. Direction by PCIT to make proportionate disallowance on account of interest expenditure on borrowed funds used for mutual fund investments:
        - The PCIT directed the AO to make proportionate disallowance on account of interest expenditure on borrowed funds utilized for making investments in mutual funds, which resulted in capital gains.
        - The assessee contended that the investments in mutual funds were made from funds from day-to-day operations and not from borrowed funds.
        - The Tribunal noted that the AO had examined the issue during the assessment and had not made any disallowance under Section 14A, considering the assessee’s detailed reply.
        - The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that Section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year.
        - It was concluded that the AO had adopted a possible view, and the order was not erroneous. Therefore, the direction by the PCIT was not justified.

        Conclusion:
        - The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the order passed by the AO was not erroneous and the invocation of Section 263 by the PCIT was not justified.
        - The Tribunal emphasized that the AO had adopted a possible view, and the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were not satisfied.
        - As a result, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found