Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 241 (1.84 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vi vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd on 25 November, 2014

H.T. Media Limited vs Principal Commissioner Of Income ... on 23 August, 2017

(i) The question as framed in ITA No. 548 of 2015 is answered in the affirmative by holding that the ITAT erred in remanding the matter concerning deletion of disallowance of any interest under clause (ii) of Rule 8D (2) of the Act to the AO for fresh determination in light of the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Taikisha Engineering India Limited (supra)
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 12 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Shriram Transport Finance Company ... vs Dcit Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai on 16 December, 2019

Similar view was taken up by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd, 370 ITR 338 and PCIT vs. Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, 105 taxmann.com 274. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court had firmly held that mere rejection of the explanation of the assessee per se cannot be accepted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vijay Solvex Limited, Alwar vs Acit, Cir.-2, Alwar on 29 January, 2018

"9. In the present case, the AO has not firstly disclosed why the appellant/assessee's claim for attributing Rs. 2,97,440 as a disallowance under s. 14A had to be rejected. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd. (supra) says that the jurisdiction to proceed further and determine amounts is derived after examination of the accounts and rejection if any of the assessee's claim or explanation. The second aspect is there appears to have been no scrutiny of the accounts by the AO-an aspect which is completely unnoticed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The third, and in the opinion of this Court, important anomaly which we cannot be unmindful is that whereas the entire tax exempt income is Rs. 48,90,000, the disallowance ultimately directed works out to nearly 110 per cent of that sum, i.e., Rs. 52,56,197.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Jm Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs Jcit (Osd) 4(3), Mumbai on 28 December, 2016

satisfied with the correctness of the claim made by the assessee in respect of such expenditure. The satisfaction of the Assessing Officer has to be arrived at, having regard to the accounts of the assessee. Sub section (2) does not ipso facto enable the Assessing Officer to apply the method prescribed by the rules straightaway without considering whether the claim made by the assessee in respect such expenditure is correct. The satisfaction of the Assessing Officer must be arrived at on an objective basis. In a situation where the accounts of the assessee furnish an objective basis for the Assessing Officer to arrive at a satisfaction in regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee, there would be no warrant for taking recourse to the method prescribed by the rules. An objective satisfaction contemplates a notice to the assessee, an opportunity to the assessee to place on record all the relevant facts including his accounts and recording of reasons by the Assessing Officer in the event that he comes to the conclusion that he is not satisfied with the claim of the assessee. We may further observe that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a recent decision has further given a similar view in the case of "CIT vs. Taikisha engineering India Ltd." (supra) has held that the AO having regard to the accounts of the assessee is required to record his satisfaction that the self or voluntarily expenditure offered by the assessee or claim that no expenditure has been incurred by the assessee in relation to earning of exempt income was not correct or the same was unsatisfactory on examination of the accounts of the assessee. Without recording such a satisfaction he cannot proceed to apply Rule 8D for the computation of disallowance under section 14A.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 30 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Serum Institute Of India Pvt Ltd.,, Pune on 15 September, 2022

The similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., 370 ITR 338 (Del) and PCIT vs. Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, 105 taxmann.com 274. In the present case, the AO vide para 7.6 merely observed that the assessee company made substantial investments in mutual funds and therefore, incurred substantial expenditure to earn the exempt income and in the circumstances, he was of the opinion that rule 8D has to be applied. Therefore, the question that comes up for consideration before us is whether the above observation made by the AO amounts to satisfaction as envisaged u/s 14A(2). It is a settled position of law that the satisfaction recorded by the AO should be based on the objective material and cannot be subjective. From mere reading of para 7.6, it is clear that the AO has not recorded satisfaction regarding the correctness of suo motu disallowance offered by the assessee u/s 14A and mere rejection of the explanation of the assessee per se, cannot be said to be a satisfaction as envisaged u/s 14A(2).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 76 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs Assessee on 14 August, 2015

62. Considering the above submissions and having gone through the above cited decisions, we are of the view that for making disallowance under sec. 14A read with Rule 8D, it is a pre-condition for the Assessing Officer to record his satisfaction that the submissions made by the assessee in relation to the expenditure if any incurred for earning the exempt income is not correct. In absence of recording of such satisfaction by the Assessing 42 Officer, the only option available with the Learned CIT(Appeals) was to delete the disallowance. We thus respectfully following the ratios laid down in the above cited decision in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd. (supra) of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi, hold that the disallowance in question made by the Assessing Officer was not justified, and the Learned CIT(Appeals) was not right in setting aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh. The said order is set aside. The grounds involving the issue are thus allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Moonstar Securities Trading & Finance ... vs Acit, New Delhi on 9 June, 2017

15. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the orders of the lower authorities. Identically to the facts noted in AY 2009-10 in this case also the ld AO did not record satisfaction after verification of the books of account about the correctness of the claim of disallowance made by the assessee before invoking provisions of Rule 8D as provided u/s 14A(2) of the Act. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering Pvt. Ltd (supra) and for the reasons given by us in appeal of assessee for AY 2009-10, we reverse the finding of the ld CIT(A), and direct the AO to delete the disallowance of Rs. 135644550/-. In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 20 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Vinay Bhasin, New Delhi vs Acit, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi on 27 August, 2020

ITA No. 6904/Del./2017 based, cost of computer and its depreciation, computer operator, consequent electricity, use of office premises, fee charged by mutual fund agents/bankers (annual fee), portfolio record maintenance and its tracking to ensure timely sale/purchase of mutual fund units etc. Except making this statement and reading all the possible expenses that involve in investment process, Ld. Assessing Officer is not specific as to what exactly the probable expenditure in this matter the assessee could have incurred. According to the assessee the investment was made in mutual funds and the expenses were already directed by the operators and a certificate to that extent was submitted before the Ld., Assessing Officer. Further, the instructions are that the dividend income will be directly credited to the bank account of the assessee so that no probable expenditure at the end of the assessee for deposit of the me dividend in bank could have occurred. Having regard to this set of facts and circumstances involved in this matter, we are of the considered opinion that instead of making a sweeping enumeration of the probable expenses involved in investment process, Ld. Assessing Officer could have taken legal exercise to verify the correctness or otherwise of the certificate that was issued by the asset management companies or the Citibank in this respect. We, therefore, find that there is no proper record of satisfaction as to the expenses incurred by the assessee for earning the exempt income. By following the decision reported in CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. 275 CTR (Del.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next