S. 14A: Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income -Disallowance cannot exceed assessee’s exempt income. [R.8D]
Nirved Traders Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 421 ITR 142 (Bom) (HC)S. 14A: Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income -Disallowance cannot exceed assessee’s exempt income. [R.8D]
Nirved Traders Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 421 ITR 142 (Bom) (HC)S. 14A: Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – Disallowance cannot exceed exempt income earned — Tribunal restricting disallowance to extent offered by assessee is held to be proper. [R.8D]
CIT v. HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd. (2020) 421 ITR 125 (Bom) (HC)S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – In the absence of any exempt income, disallowance is not permissible. [ R.8D]
PCIT v Dish TV India Ltd (Bom) (HC) (UR ).S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – Rule 8D is not applicable to assessments prior to AY. 2008 -09 [R.8D]
PCIT v. Bank of India ( Bom) (HC) (UR)S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – When there is no exempt income declared during the year no disallowance can be made .[ R.8D(2) (ii) ]
PCIT v .Morgan Stanley India Securities P Ltd (Bom)(HC)(UR)S. 14A: Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – When there is no exempt income declared during the year no disallowance can be made. [R. 8D (2) (ii) ]
PCIT v Khoinoor Project Pvt Ltd ( 2020) 425 ITR 700 / (2021) 276 Taxman 180 (Bom) (HC)S.11: Exemptions – Trust was not engaged in running the restaurant, bar etc. – Exemption is held to be allowable.
CIT(E) v. Matoshri Arts & Sports Trust. (Bom) (HC) (UR) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed (SLP No.17828 of 2019 dt.26/07/2019)(2019) 416 ITR 127 (St.)(SC)S.2 (14)(a): Capital asset –Advance given to subsidiary – Loss – Held to be allowable as short term capital loss [S. 2(42A) ,2(47)]
CIT v. Siemens Nixdorf Information Systems Gmbh (2020) 114 taxmann.com 531 (Bom)(HC) Editorial : SLP oof Revenue dismissed , CIT (IT) v. Siemens Nixdorf Information Systemse Gmbh (2023)453 ITR 741 / 293 Taxman 1 (SC)S. 271F : Penalty-Return of income-Failure to furnish – Refund return-Penalty is not leviable. [S.139(4), 244A]
Rajesh Ajjavara v. ITO (TDS) (2020) 77 ITR 14 (SN) (Bang.)(Trib.)S. 271D : Penalty–Takes or accepts any loan or deposit–Gift transactions between husband and wife-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 269SS, 269T, 271E, 273B]
Savita S. Gangadshetti (Smt.) v. JCIT (2020) 77 ITR 79 (SN) (Bang.)(Trib.)