Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)
Vinay Bhasin, New Delhi vs Acit, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi on 27 August, 2020 cites

Joint Investments Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 February, 2015

316 and Joint Investments (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 (Dei.), we are of the opinion that the AO at the first instance should have examined the correctness of the statement made by the assessee that no expenses were incurred for earning the exempt income during the year and if and only if the Ld. AO is not satisfied on this account after making reference to the accounts, he is entitled to adopt the method under Rue 8D of the Rules. We. therefore, while allowing the plea of the assessee direct the Ld. Assessing Officer *c delete the addition made on this score also."
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 501 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vi vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd on 25 November, 2014

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.)
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 197 - S Khanna - Full Document

C.I.T.,Mumbai vs M/S.Walfort Share & Stock Brokers P.Ltd on 6 July, 2010

14. The AO. however, noted that the basic object of section 14A is to disallow the direct and indirect expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. AO referred to judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. 326 ITR 1. The AO also noted that AO has to adopt a reasonable basis or method consistent with all the relevant facts and circumstances for making a disallowance. The assdsse has not provided any separate amount for earning of exempt income. The assessee has made very heavy investments for earning exempt income throughout the year. The AO. therefore, following section 14A read with Rule 8D disallowed expenditure of Rs. 6,08,180/- which is attributed to the earning of exempt income.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 501 - S H Kapadia - Full Document
1   2 Next