Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)
Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata, Kolkata vs M/S Dreamz Met Construction Projects ... on 7 December, 2018
cites
Section 131 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Major Metals Ltd vs Union Of India on 27 October, 2015
Ltd. (supra). Thus not entertained.
Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata, Kolkata vs M/S Trend Infra Developers Pvt.Ltd, ... on 26 October, 2018
6.2. We find that the issue under dispute was the subject matter of adjudication on
exactly similar facts by this tribunal in the case of ITO vs Trend Infra Developers Pvt
Ltd in ITA No. 2270/Kol/2016 dated 26.10.2018 for Asst Year 2012-13, wherein the
addition made towards share premium was deleted. The findings given therein are not
reiterated for the sake of brevity.
Commissioner Of Income Tax I vs M/S.Chettinad Logistics P Ltd on 25 January, 2016
7. The Ground No. 4 raised by the revenue is with regard to deletion of disallowance of
Rs 2,98,571/- u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules by the ld CITA. The
assessee pleaded that it had not made any investments using any borrowed funds and
had not claimed any borrowed cost as expenditure in its audited financial statements for
the year under appeal. Moreover, it was pointed out that there was no exempt income
claimed by the assessee in the return of income and accordingly the provisions of
section 14A of the Act cannot be made applicable at all. We find that this issue is now
well settled by the following decisions of various high courts as under;-
CIT vs Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd - (2017) 80 taxmann.com 221 (Mad HC)
CIT vs Holcim India Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 486 /2014 (Delhi HC)
Cheminvest Ltd vs CIT reported in 378 ITR 33 (Delhi HC)
CIT vs Lakhani Marketing in ITA No. 970/2008 dated 2.4.2014 (P&H HC)
CIT vs Corrtech Energy Pvt ltd reported in 223 taxman 130 (Guj)
CIT vs Shivam Motors Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 88 of 2014 (All HC)
10
11
ITA No.2047/Kol/2016
M/s Dreamz Met Construction Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Cheminvest Limited vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vi on 2 September, 2015
7. The Ground No. 4 raised by the revenue is with regard to deletion of disallowance of
Rs 2,98,571/- u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules by the ld CITA. The
assessee pleaded that it had not made any investments using any borrowed funds and
had not claimed any borrowed cost as expenditure in its audited financial statements for
the year under appeal. Moreover, it was pointed out that there was no exempt income
claimed by the assessee in the return of income and accordingly the provisions of
section 14A of the Act cannot be made applicable at all. We find that this issue is now
well settled by the following decisions of various high courts as under;-
CIT vs Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd - (2017) 80 taxmann.com 221 (Mad HC)
CIT vs Holcim India Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 486 /2014 (Delhi HC)
Cheminvest Ltd vs CIT reported in 378 ITR 33 (Delhi HC)
CIT vs Lakhani Marketing in ITA No. 970/2008 dated 2.4.2014 (P&H HC)
CIT vs Corrtech Energy Pvt ltd reported in 223 taxman 130 (Guj)
CIT vs Shivam Motors Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 88 of 2014 (All HC)
10
11
ITA No.2047/Kol/2016
M/s Dreamz Met Construction Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Lakhani Marketing Inc on 3 December, 2010
7. The Ground No. 4 raised by the revenue is with regard to deletion of disallowance of
Rs 2,98,571/- u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules by the ld CITA. The
assessee pleaded that it had not made any investments using any borrowed funds and
had not claimed any borrowed cost as expenditure in its audited financial statements for
the year under appeal. Moreover, it was pointed out that there was no exempt income
claimed by the assessee in the return of income and accordingly the provisions of
section 14A of the Act cannot be made applicable at all. We find that this issue is now
well settled by the following decisions of various high courts as under;-
CIT vs Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd - (2017) 80 taxmann.com 221 (Mad HC)
CIT vs Holcim India Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 486 /2014 (Delhi HC)
Cheminvest Ltd vs CIT reported in 378 ITR 33 (Delhi HC)
CIT vs Lakhani Marketing in ITA No. 970/2008 dated 2.4.2014 (P&H HC)
CIT vs Corrtech Energy Pvt ltd reported in 223 taxman 130 (Guj)
CIT vs Shivam Motors Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 88 of 2014 (All HC)
10
11
ITA No.2047/Kol/2016
M/s Dreamz Met Construction Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Commissioner Of Income Tax -I vs Corrtech Energy Pvt ... on 24 March, 2014
7. The Ground No. 4 raised by the revenue is with regard to deletion of disallowance of
Rs 2,98,571/- u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules by the ld CITA. The
assessee pleaded that it had not made any investments using any borrowed funds and
had not claimed any borrowed cost as expenditure in its audited financial statements for
the year under appeal. Moreover, it was pointed out that there was no exempt income
claimed by the assessee in the return of income and accordingly the provisions of
section 14A of the Act cannot be made applicable at all. We find that this issue is now
well settled by the following decisions of various high courts as under;-
CIT vs Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd - (2017) 80 taxmann.com 221 (Mad HC)
CIT vs Holcim India Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 486 /2014 (Delhi HC)
Cheminvest Ltd vs CIT reported in 378 ITR 33 (Delhi HC)
CIT vs Lakhani Marketing in ITA No. 970/2008 dated 2.4.2014 (P&H HC)
CIT vs Corrtech Energy Pvt ltd reported in 223 taxman 130 (Guj)
CIT vs Shivam Motors Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 88 of 2014 (All HC)
10
11
ITA No.2047/Kol/2016
M/s Dreamz Met Construction Projects Pvt. Ltd.