Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Williamson Financial Services ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 2 January, 2023

Dcit, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs Trent Hypermarket Private Limited, ... on 14 May, 2026

13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, there are investments in different debt mutual funds as well as investments in the equity shares of its subsidiary companies by the assessee. As far as debt mutual funds are concerned, no dividend income has been earned during the year under consideration and on redemption of debt mutual funds, the capital gains so accrued have already been offered to tax. As far as the equity investments are concerned, it is again an admitted position that no dividend income has been earned or received during the year. The AO has relied on the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2022 and has held that the said amendment is retrospective in nature. Interestingly, the assessment order has been passed on 30-03-2022 and at the relevant point in time, the Finance Bill, 2022 though presented on the floor of the House of Parliament, however, has not got assent of the Hon'ble President of India and, therefore, has not become the law of the land and in spite of that, the AO has taken cognizance of the proposed amendment and made the subject disallowance. In any case, the language of the amendment as is evident from clauses to the Finance Bill as well as the Memorandum explaining the Bill is clear wherein it has been stated that the amendment is applicable from 01-04-2022 effective from AY. 2022-23 onwards and, therefore, prospective in nature. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Williamson Financial Services Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Era Infrastructure (supra) have held that the amendment as prospective in nature. The Coordinate Mumbai Benches have taken a similar and consistent view in the matter and the amendment has been held to be prospective in nature. In light of the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A), wherein he has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi and Gauhati High Courts 8 ITA No. 1900/Mum/2026 and find no legal and justifiable basis to interfere with the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and hence, the order and findings of the Ld.CIT(A) are confirmed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, Lucknow vs M/S U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., ... on 16 May, 2025

(D.2) Whether the aforesaid explanation to section 14A of the Act is retrospective or prospective has been considered by various Hon'ble High Courts in the cases reported as Pr. CIT vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi), Williamson Financial Services Ltd. vs. CIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 607 (Gauhati) and Pr. CIT vs. Avantha Realty Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 376 (Calcutta). In these decisions, Hon'ble High Courts have held that the amendment to section 14A of the Income Tax Act, whereby the aforesaid explanation was inserted, is prospective in nature, and not retrospective. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble High Courts, it is held that explanation to section 14A of the Act, inserted by amendment brought about by Finance Act, 2022, with effect from 01/04/2022, is prospective in nature and has no application to the assessment year 2016-17 to which this appeal pertains. Accordingly, it is held that the assessee is not hit by the aforesaid explanation to section 14A of the Act in so far as assessment year 2016-17 is concerned. Further, in respectful consideration of precedents mentioned in foregoing paragraphs (D.1.1) and (D.1.1.1) of this order; it is held that no disallowance is attracted u/s 14A of IT Act in assessment year 2016-17. In view of I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 31 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 the foregoing, we decline to interfere with the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, Lucknow vs M/S U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., ... on 16 May, 2025

(D.2) Whether the aforesaid explanation to section 14A of the Act is retrospective or prospective has been considered by various Hon'ble High Courts in the cases reported as Pr. CIT vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi), Williamson Financial Services Ltd. vs. CIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 607 (Gauhati) and Pr. CIT vs. Avantha Realty Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 376 (Calcutta). In these decisions, Hon'ble High Courts have held that the amendment to section 14A of the Income Tax Act, whereby the aforesaid explanation was inserted, is prospective in nature, and not retrospective. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble High Courts, it is held that explanation to section 14A of the Act, inserted by amendment brought about by Finance Act, 2022, with effect from 01/04/2022, is prospective in nature and has no application to the assessment year 2016-17 to which this appeal pertains. Accordingly, it is held that the assessee is not hit by the aforesaid explanation to section 14A of the Act in so far as assessment year 2016-17 is concerned. Further, in respectful consideration of precedents mentioned in foregoing paragraphs (D.1.1) and (D.1.1.1) of this order; it is held that no disallowance is attracted u/s 14A of IT Act in assessment year 2016-17. In view of I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 31 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 the foregoing, we decline to interfere with the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, Lucknow vs M/S U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., ... on 16 May, 2025

(D.2) Whether the aforesaid explanation to section 14A of the Act is retrospective or prospective has been considered by various Hon'ble High Courts in the cases reported as Pr. CIT vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi), Williamson Financial Services Ltd. vs. CIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 607 (Gauhati) and Pr. CIT vs. Avantha Realty Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 376 (Calcutta). In these decisions, Hon'ble High Courts have held that the amendment to section 14A of the Income Tax Act, whereby the aforesaid explanation was inserted, is prospective in nature, and not retrospective. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble High Courts, it is held that explanation to section 14A of the Act, inserted by amendment brought about by Finance Act, 2022, with effect from 01/04/2022, is prospective in nature and has no application to the assessment year 2016-17 to which this appeal pertains. Accordingly, it is held that the assessee is not hit by the aforesaid explanation to section 14A of the Act in so far as assessment year 2016-17 is concerned. Further, in respectful consideration of precedents mentioned in foregoing paragraphs (D.1.1) and (D.1.1.1) of this order; it is held that no disallowance is attracted u/s 14A of IT Act in assessment year 2016-17. In view of I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 31 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 the foregoing, we decline to interfere with the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

U.P. State Sugar Corporation ... vs Dcit, Range-Vi, Lucknow on 16 May, 2025

(D.2) Whether the aforesaid explanation to section 14A of the Act is retrospective or prospective has been considered by various Hon'ble High Courts in the cases reported as Pr. CIT vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi), Williamson Financial Services Ltd. vs. CIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 607 (Gauhati) and Pr. CIT vs. Avantha Realty Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 376 (Calcutta). In these decisions, Hon'ble High Courts have held that the amendment to section 14A of the Income Tax Act, whereby the aforesaid explanation was inserted, is prospective in nature, and not retrospective. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble High Courts, it is held that explanation to section 14A of the Act, inserted by amendment brought about by Finance Act, 2022, with effect from 01/04/2022, is prospective in nature and has no application to the assessment year 2016-17 to which this appeal pertains. Accordingly, it is held that the assessee is not hit by the aforesaid explanation to section 14A of the Act in so far as assessment year 2016-17 is concerned. Further, in respectful consideration of precedents mentioned in foregoing paragraphs (D.1.1) and (D.1.1.1) of this order; it is held that no disallowance is attracted u/s 14A of IT Act in assessment year 2016-17. In view of I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 31 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 the foregoing, we decline to interfere with the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, Range-6, Lucknow vs M/S. U.P. State Sugar Corporation ... on 16 May, 2025

(D.2) Whether the aforesaid explanation to section 14A of the Act is retrospective or prospective has been considered by various Hon'ble High Courts in the cases reported as Pr. CIT vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi), Williamson Financial Services Ltd. vs. CIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 607 (Gauhati) and Pr. CIT vs. Avantha Realty Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 376 (Calcutta). In these decisions, Hon'ble High Courts have held that the amendment to section 14A of the Income Tax Act, whereby the aforesaid explanation was inserted, is prospective in nature, and not retrospective. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble High Courts, it is held that explanation to section 14A of the Act, inserted by amendment brought about by Finance Act, 2022, with effect from 01/04/2022, is prospective in nature and has no application to the assessment year 2016-17 to which this appeal pertains. Accordingly, it is held that the assessee is not hit by the aforesaid explanation to section 14A of the Act in so far as assessment year 2016-17 is concerned. Further, in respectful consideration of precedents mentioned in foregoing paragraphs (D.1.1) and (D.1.1.1) of this order; it is held that no disallowance is attracted u/s 14A of IT Act in assessment year 2016-17. In view of I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 31 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 the foregoing, we decline to interfere with the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dsp Investment Managers Pvt Ltd,Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 13 February, 2026

It is interesting to note, though, the decision of ld. Special Bench in case of Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was specifically brought to the notice of ld. first appellate authority by the assessee, however, he has conveniently overlooked it. Suffice to say, the Division Bench decision of ITAT in case of Williamson Financial Services Ltd. (supra) forcefully relied upon by ld. first appellate authority, in the meanwhile, has been reversed by the Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati in case of Williamson Financial Services Ltd. vs. CIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 607 (Guwahati). While reversing the decision of the Tribunal, the Hon'ble High Court applied the well settled principle of law that in absence of any exempt income in a particular assessment year, no disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D can be made.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad, ... vs Adani Logistics Ltd, Ahmedabad on 12 February, 2026

The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Williamson Financial Services Limited vs. CIT (supra) has held that the Explanation inserted to Section 14A of the Act vide Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f 01.04.2022 is prospective in nature and cannot be presumed to have retrospective effect and applied to assessment years prior to 01.04.2022.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd.,Vibhuti Khand ... vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 2 April, 2025

(D.2) Whether the aforesaid explanation to section 14A of the Act is retrospective or prospective has been considered by various Hon'ble High Courts in the cases reported as Pr. CIT vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi), Williamson Financial Services Ltd. vs. CIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 607 (Gauhati) and Pr. CIT vs. Avantha Realty Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 376 (Calcutta). In these decisions, Hon'ble 54 High Courts have held that the amendment to section 14A of the Income Tax Act, whereby the aforesaid explanation was inserted, is prospective in nature, and not retrospective. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble High Courts, it is held that explanation to section 14A of the Act, inserted by amendment brought about by Finance Act, 2022, with effect from 01/04/2022, is prospective in nature and has no application to the assessment year 2016-17 to which this appeal pertains. Accordingly, it is held that the assessee is not hit by the aforesaid explanation to section 14A of the Act in so far as assessment year 2016-17 is concerned. Further, in respectful consideration of precedents mentioned in foregoing paragraphs (D.1.1) and (D.1.1.1) of this order; it is held that no disallowance is attracted u/s 14A of IT Act in assessment year 2016-17. In view of the foregoing, we decline to interfere with the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next