Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.42 seconds)
M/S Kalyani Barter (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs The Ito, Wd-2(3), Kolkata, Kolkata on 3 March, 2017 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore ... vs B. C. Srinivasa Setty, Etc. Etc on 19 February, 1981

(iii) is to he computed is the value o] "investments, income from which does not or shall not form part of total income", and. when there are no such investments, the rule cannot have any application. When no amount can be computed in the light of the formula given in rule 8 D(2)(ii) and (iii) , no disallowance can be made under rule 8D (2)(ii) and (iii) either. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. B C Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 when computation provisions fail, the charging provisions cannot he applied.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 859 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Concept Data Management (P) Ltd. on 11 September, 2003

Therefore, considering the above decisions and the fact that the Appellant was trading in Shares, the same were being held as stock-in-trade which is apparent from the Balance Sheet i.e. the Shares on which exempt income had been earned were part of its stock-in- trade and not investment. Therefore, following the above decision it is held that while the indirect expenses covered under Rule 8D (ii) and (iii) were not disallowable in view of the Shares being stock-in-trade. However, regarding applicability of Rule 8D(i) following the above cited decision of Hon'ble I.T.A.T., Kolkata, it is held that the disallowance is to be restricted to direct expenses incurred in earning of dividend income i.e. disallowance of direct expenses is to be made even when Shares are held as "stock-in-trade." The A.O. is accordingly directed to re-compute the disallowance u/s.14A and restrict the same to the disallowance of direct expenses incurred by the Appellant for earning of the exempt income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 91 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii ... vs M/S Winsome Textile Industries Ltd on 15 February, 2016

The ld. counsel for the assessee also cited the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Winsom Textile Industries Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 204 wherein it was held that section 14A of the Act could not apply when the assessee had not made any claim for exemption of divided income in its income tax return.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 221 - A K Mittal - Full Document

M/S Rei Agro Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii on 21 November, 2014

However before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee has raised an alternative contention that even if section 14A read with Rule 8D is held to be applicable in the case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer may be directed to compute the disallowance as per Rule 8D by taking into consideration only those shares which have yielded dividend income in the year under consideration. Since this issue raised by the ld. counsel for the assessee as an alternative contention is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of REI Agro Ltd. (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the disallowance as per Rule 8D by taking into consideration only those shares, which have yielded dividend income in the year under consideration. The alternative contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee is accordingly accepted. Ground No. 1 of the revenue's appeal is thus partly allowed.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 16 - S Pal - Full Document

Sharsh Finance & Investment Company ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 19 February, 2016

The learned CIT-A after considering the submission of the assessee deleted the addition made by the AO under the provisions of rule 8D2(ii) and (iii) of Income Tax Rules by observing that the assessee is engaged in the business of shares trading and the shares were classified as stock in trade in its books of accounts. Therefore the assessee is entitled for the deduction of interest expenses and administrative expenses. While holding so the learned CIT-A relied in the order of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Gulshan Investment Company Ltd reported in 31 taxman.com 113.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1