There were certain batch of appeals which were before the Supreme Court. The Delhi High court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. was against the assessee hence Assessee had filed appeals before Supreme Court. However, Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Pr. CIT v.\u00a0 State Bank\u00a0 of\u00a0 Patiala\u00a0 [2017] 391 ITR 218 (Punj. & Har.)(HC) <\/em><\/strong>had taken a view contrary to view taken by the Delhi High Court. The Punjab and Haryana High Court followed, with approval,\u00a0 the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in CCI Ltd. v.\u00a0 Jt. CIT [2012] \u00a0206 Taxman 563 (Karn) (HC). <\/em><\/strong>The Revenue had filed appeals in such cases challenging the correctness of said decisions.<\/p>\n Facts of Delhi High Court decision Maxopp Investment Ltd.:<\/p>\n The company was engaged, inter alia<\/em>, in the business of finance, investment and dealing in shares and securities. The Assessee held shares\/ securities in two portfolios, viz. (a) as investment on capital account; and,<\/p>\n (b) as trading assets for the purpose of acquiring and retaining control\u00a0 over investee group companies, particularly Max India Ltd., a widely held quoted public limited company. Any profit\/loss arising on sale of shares\/ securities held as \u2018investment\u2019 was returned as income under the head \u2018capital gains\u2019, whereas profit\/loss arising on sale of shares\/securities held\u00a0 as \u2018trading assets\u2019 (i.e. held, inter alia<\/em>, with the intention of acquiring, exercising and retaining control over investee groupcompanies) has been regularly offered and assessed to tax as business income under the head \u2018profits and gains of business or profession\u2019. Consistent with the aforesaid treatment regularly followed, the Assessee filed return for the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year\u00a0 2002-03, declaring income\u00a0 of Rs.78,90,430\/-. No part of the interest expenditure of Rs.1,16,21,168\/- debited to the profit and loss account, to the extent\u00a0 relatable\u00a0 to investment in shares of Max India Limited, yielding tax free dividend income, was considered disallowable under Section 14A of the Act on the ground that shares in the said company were acquired for the purposes of retaining controlling interest and not with the motive of earningdividend.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n According to the Assessee, the dominant purpose\/intention of investment\u00a0 in shares of Max India Ltd. was acquiring\/retaining controlling interest therein and not earning dividend and, therefore, dividend of Rs.49,90,860\/- earned on shares of Max IndiaLtd. during the relevant previous year\u00a0 was only incidental to the holding of such shares. The Assessing Officer (AO), while passing the assessment order, under Section 143(3) worked\u00a0\u00a0 out disallowance under Section 14A of the Act at Rs.67,74,175\/- by apportioning the interest expenditure of Rs.1,16,21,168\/- in the ratio of investment in shares of Max India Ltd. (on which dividend was received)\u00a0 to the total amount of unsecured loan. The AO, however, restricted disallowance under that Section to Rs.49,90,860\/- being the amount of dividend received and claimed exempt.<\/p>\n In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. Assessee herein carried the matter in further appeal to the ITAT. In view of the conflicting decisions of various Benches by the ITAT\u00a0 with respect to the interpretation\u00a0 of Section 14A of the Act, a Special Bench was constituted in the matter\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 of ITO v. Daga Capital Management (P.) Ltd. [2009] 117 ITD 169 (SB) (Mum.)(Trib). <\/em><\/strong>The appeal of the Assessee company was also tagged and heard by the aforesaid Special Bench.<\/p>\n The Special Bench of the ITAT\u00a0 in the case of Daga Capital Management\u00a0\u00a0 (P.) Ltd. (supra), dismissing the appeal of the Assessee, inter alia<\/em>, held\u00a0 that investment in shares representing controlling interest did not amount to carrying on of business and, therefore, interest expenditure\u00a0 incurred for acquiring shares in group companies was hit by the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. The Special Bench further held that holding of shares with the intention of acquiring\/retaining controlling interest would normally be on capital account, i.e. as investment and not as \u2018trading assets\u2019. For that reason too, the Special Bench held that there existed dominant connection between interest paid on loan utilized for acquiring the aforesaid shares and earning of dividend income. Consequently, the provisions of Section 14A of the Act were\u00a0 held\u00a0 to be attracted on the facts of the case.<\/p>\n Against the aforesaid order of the Special Bench, Assessee preferred appeal\u00a0 to the High Court. The Delhi High Court held that the expression \u2018in relation to\u2019 appearing in Section 14A of the Act was synonymous with \u2018in connection with\u2019 or \u2018pertaining to\u2019, and, that the provisions of that Section apply regardless of the intention\/motive behind making the investment. As\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 a consequence, proportionate disallowance of the expenditure incurred by the assessee was maintained.<\/p>\n Taking note of certain judgments, the\u00a0 High\u00a0 Court\u00a0 observed that\u00a0 prior to the insertion of Section 14A in the Act, thelaw was that when an<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n assessee had a composite and indivisible business, which had elements\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 of both taxable and non-taxable income, the entire expenditure in respect\u00a0 of the said business was\u00a0 deductible and, in such a\u00a0 case, the\u00a0 principle\u00a0 of apportionment of the expenditure relating to the non-taxable income\u00a0\u00a0 did not apply. However, where the business was divisible, the principle\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 of apportionment of the expenditure was applicable and the expenditure apportioned to the \u2018exempt\u2019 income or income notexigible to\u00a0 tax, was\u00a0 not allowable as a deduction. The High Court, then, took cognizance of\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the legislative intent and objective behind the insertion of Section 14A\u00a0 and disagreed with the propositions advanced by the Assessee, that if the dominant and main objective of spending was not the earning of \u2018exempt\u2019 income then, the expenditure could not be disallowed under section 14A. Likewise, explaining the meaning of \u2018expenditure incurred\u2019, the High Court agreed that this expression would mean incurring of actual expenditure\u00a0 and not to some imagined expenditure. At\u00a0 the same time, observed\u00a0 the High Court, the \u2018actual\u2019 expenditure that is in contemplation under section 14A(1) of the said Act\u00a0 was the \u2018actual\u2019 expenditure\u00a0 in relation to or\u00a0 in connection with or pertaining to exempt income. The corollary to this\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 is that if no expenditure is incurred in relation to the exempt income, no disallowance can be made under section 14A of the said Act.<\/p>\n Facts of Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in case of State Bank of Patiala:<\/p>\n In this case exempt income in the form of dividend was earned by the Bank from securities held by it as its\u00a0 stock in\u00a0 trade. The\u00a0 assessee filed its return declaring an income of about Rs.670 crores which was selected for scrutiny. The return showed dividend income exempt under section 10(34) and (35) of about Rs.11.07 crores and net interest income exempt under section 10(15)(iv) (h) of about Rs.1.12 crores. The total exempt income claimed in the return was, therefore, Rs.12,19,78,015\/-.The assessee while claiming the exemption contended that the investment in shares, bonds, etc. constituted its stock-in-trade; that the investment had not been made only for earning tax free income; that the tax free income was only incidental to the assessee\u2019s main business of sale and purchase\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 of securities and, therefore, no expenditure had been incurred for earning such exempt income; the expenditure would have remained the same even\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 if no dividend or interest income had been earned by the assessee from\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the said securities and that no expenditure on proportionate basis could\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 be allocated against exempt income. The assessee also contended that in any event it had acquired the securities from its own funds and, therefore, section 14A was not applicable. The AO restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in Rule 8D holding that Section 14A would be applicable.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The CIT(A) issued notice of enhancement under Section 251 of the Act\u00a0\u00a0 and held that in view of Section 14A of the Act, the assessee was not to\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 be allowed any deduction in respect of income which is not chargeable\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 to tax. Therefore, he disallowed the entire expenditure claimed instead of restricting the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income as done by the AO.<\/p>\n The ITAT\u00a0 set aside the order of the AO as well as CIT(A). It referred to\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 a CBDT Circular No.18\/2015 dated 02.11.2015 which states that income arising from investment of a banking concern is attributable to the business of banking which falls under the head \u201cProfits and gains of business and profession\u201d. The circular states that shares and stock held\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 by the bank are \u2018stock-in-trade\u2019 and not \u2018investment\u2019. Referring to certain judgments and the earlier orders of the Tribunal, it was held that if shares are held as stock-in-trade and not as investment even the disallowance under rule 8D would be nil as rule 8D(2)(i) would be confined to direct expenses for earning the tax exempt income.<\/p>\n On further appeal by the Revenue, the High Court\u00a0 accepted\u00a0 the contention of the Assessee that the assessee was engaged in the purchase and sale\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0 shares as\u00a0 a\u00a0 trader with the object of\u00a0 earning profit and not with\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 a view to earn interest or dividend. The assessee does not have an investment portfolio. The securities constitute the assessee\u2019s stock-in- trade. The Department, accepted as a matter of fact, that the dividend\u00a0 and interest earned was from the securities that constituted the assessee\u2019s stock-in-trade. The Court further observed that as a banking institution, \u00a0the assessee was also statutorily required to place a part of its funds in approved securities. The Court followed the judgment of the High Court\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 of Karnataka in CCILtd. v. Jt. CIT [2012] 206 Taxman 563 (Karn.) (HC).<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The question arose under varied circumstances where the shares\/stocks were purchased of a company for the purpose of gaining control\u00a0 over\u00a0 the said company or as \u2018stock-in-trade\u2019. However, incidentally income\u00a0 was also generated\u00a0 in the form of dividends as well. On this basis, the assessees contended that the dominant intention for purchasing the share was not to earn dividends income but control\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 of the business in the company in which shares were invested or for the purpose\u00a0\u00a0 of trading in the shares as a business activity etc. In this backdrop, the issue was \u00a0as to whether the expenditure incurred can be treated as expenditure \u2018in relation\u00a0\u00a0 to income\u2019 i.e. dividend income which does not\u00a0 form part of\u00a0 the\u00a0 total income. To put it differently, was the dominant or main object would be a relevant consideration in determining as to whether expenditure incurred is \u2018in relation\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 to\u2019 the dividend income. Though in some other cases, there were little difference\u00a0\u00a0 in fact situation. However, all these cases pertained to dividend income, whether<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n it was for the purpose of investment in order to retain controlling interest in a company or in group of companies or the dominant purpose was to have it as stock-in-trade.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n On the interpretation of the expression \u2018in relation to\u2019, the majority opinion of\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the Special Bench was that the requirement of there being direct and proximate connection between the expenditure incurred and exempt income earned could\u00a0 not be read into the provision. According\u00a0 to the majority view,\u00a0 \u2018what is relevant\u00a0 is to work out the expenditure in relation to the exempt income and not to examine whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee has resulted into exempt income\u00a0\u00a0 or taxable income\u2019. As per the minority view, however, the existence of dominant and immediate connection between the expenditure incurred and dividend income was a condition precedent for invoking the provisions of Section 14A of the Act.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It was accordingly held, as per the minority, that mere receipt of dividend income, incidental to the holding of shares, in the case of a dealer in shares, would not\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 be sufficient for invoking provisions of Section 14Aof the Act.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court observed that in the first instance, it needs to be recognized that as per section 14A(1) of the Act, deduction of that expenditure is not to be allowed which has been incurred by the assessee \u201cin relation to income which\u00a0 does not form part of the total income under this Act\u201d. Axiomatically, it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is includible in total income that has to be disallowed. If an expenditure incurred\u00a0\u00a0 has no causal connection with the exempted income, then such an expenditure would obviously be treated as not related to the income that is exempted from\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 tax, and such expenditure would be allowed as business expenditure. The Court then proceeded to state that there was no quarrel in assigning this meaning to section 14A of the Act. In fact, all the High Courts, whether Delhi High Court on\u00a0 the one hand or Punjab and Haryana High Court on the other hand, had agreed\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 in providing this interpretation to section 14A of the Act. The entire dispute was, what interpretation is to be given to the words \u2018in relation to\u2019 in the given scenario, viz. where the dividend income on the shares is earned, though the dominant purpose for subscribing in those shares of the investee company was \u00a0not to earn dividend. The Court had two scenarios in these sets of appeals. In\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 one group of cases the main purpose for investing in shares was to gain control\u00a0 over the investee company. Other cases were those where the shares of investee company were held by the assessees as stock-in-trade (i.e. as a business activity) and not as investment to earn dividends. In this context, it is to be examined as\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 to whether the expenditure was incurred, in respective scenarios, in relation to\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the dividend income or not.<\/p>\n Thus the first and foremost issue that falls for consideration was as to whether\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the dominant purpose test, which was pressed intoservice by the assessees<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n would apply while interpreting Section 14A of the Act or have to go by the theory of apportionment. The Court was of the opinion that the dominant purpose for which the investment into shares is\u00a0 made by\u00a0 an\u00a0 assessee may\u00a0 not be relevant. Court observed that no doubt, the assessee like Maxopp Investment Limited may have made the investment in order to gain control of the investee company. However, that does not appear to be a relevant factor in determining\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the issue at hand. Fact remains that such dividend income is non-taxable. In\u00a0 this scenario, if expenditure is incurred on earning the dividend income, that much of the expenditure which is attributable to the dividend income has to be disallowed and cannot be treated as business expenditure. Keeping this objective behind Section14A of the Act in mind, the said provision has to be interpreted, particularly, the word \u2018in relation to the income\u2019 that does not form part of total income. Considered in this hue, the principle of apportionment of expenses comes into play as thatis the principle which is engrained in Section 14A of the Act.<\/p>\n The Court affirmed the observation of Delhi High Court that prior to introduction\u00a0\u00a0 of Section 14A of the Act, the law was that when an assessee had a composite\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 and indivisible business which had elements of both taxable and non-taxable income, the entire expenditure in respect of said business was deductible and, in such a case, the principle of apportionment of the expenditure relating to the non- taxable income did not apply. The principle of apportionment was made available only where the business was divisible. It is to find a cure to the aforesaid problem that the Legislature has not only inserted Section 14A by the Finance (Amendment) Act, 2001 but also made it retrospective, i.e., 1962 when the Income Tax Act itself came into force. The aforesaid intent was expressed loudly and clearly in the Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill, 2001. The Court, thus, agreed with the view taken by the Delhi High Court, and was\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0not inclined to accept the opinion of Punjab & Haryana High Court which went\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 by dominant purposetheory.<\/p>\n Post dominance purpose test, the other question that arose before the Court was what happens when the shares are held as \u2018stock-in-trade\u2019and not as \u2018investment\u2019, particularly, by the banks? On this specific aspect, CBDT had issued circular No. 18\/2015 dated November 02,2015. This Circular took note of the judgment in CIT<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n the extent of saying that this would not be limited only to co-operative societies\/ Banks claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act but would also\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 be applicable to all banks\/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular carves\u00a0 out a distinction between \u2018stock-in-trade\u2019 and \u2018investment\u2019 and\u00a0 provides that ifthe motive behind purchase and sale of shares is to earn profit, then the same would be treated as trading profit and if the object is to derive income by way\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0of dividend then the profit would be said to have accrued from investment. The Court to this extent, confirmed High Court\u2019s view. However at the same time, Court did not agree with the test of dominant intention applied by the\u00a0Punjab\u00a0 and Haryana High Court. In that event, the question was as to on what basis\u00a0 those cases are to be decided where the shares of other companies are purchased\u00a0 by the assessees as \u2018stock-in-trade\u2019 and not as \u2018investment\u2019. The Supreme Court observed that where shares are held as stock-in-trade, the main purpose is to trade in those shares and earn profits therefrom. Those profits which would naturally be treated as \u2018income\u2019 under the head \u2018profits and gains from business\u00a0 and profession\u2019. What happens is that, in the process, when the shares are held\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 as \u2018stock-in-trade\u2019, certain dividend is also earned, though incidentally, which is also an income. However, by virtue of Section 10 (34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from tax. As per\u00a0\u00a0 the Supreme Court this triggers the applicability of Section 14A of the Act\u00a0 which\u00a0 is based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non- taxable income as held in CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd (2010)\u00a0 326 ITR 1 (SC)<\/em><\/strong>. Therefore, to that extent, depending upon the facts of each case,\u00a0 the expenditure incurred in acquiring those shares will have to beapportioned.<\/p>\n The Court further noted from the facts in the State Bank of Patiala cases that the AO,\u00a0 while passing the assessment order, had already restricted the disallowance\u00a0\u00a0 to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in Rule 8D of the Rules and holding that section 14A of the Act\u00a0 would\u00a0 be applicable. In spite of this exercise of apportionment of expenditure carried out\u00a0\u00a0 by the AO, CIT(A) disallowed the entire deduction of expenditure. Confirming the AO\u2019s action of restricting the disallowance to exempt income the Court held that the view of the CIT(A) was clearly untenable and rightly set aside by the ITAT.<\/p>\n Having regard to the language of\u00a0 Section 14A(2) of\u00a0 the Act, read with Rule \u00a08D of the Rules, the Court made it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto <\/em>disallowance under Section 14A was not correct.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It will be in those cases where the assessee in his return has himself apportioned but the AO\u00a0 was not accepting the said apportionment. In that eventuality, it\u00a0 will have to record its satisfaction to this effect. Further, while recording such a satisfaction, nature of loan taken by the assessee for purchasing the shares\/making the investmentin shares is to be examined by the AO.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Court held that; The argument that S. 14A & Rule 8D will not apply if the \u201cdominant intention\u201d of the assessee was not to earn\u00a0 dividends\u00a0 but to gain control of the company or to hold as stock-in-trade is not acceptable. S. 14A applies irrespective of whether the shares are held to gain control or not. However, where the shares are held as stock-in-trade, the expenditure incurred for earning business profits will have to be apportioned and allowed as a deduction. Only\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 that expenditure which is \u201cin relation to\u201d earning dividends can be disallowed\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 u\/s 14A & Rule 8D. Further disallowance cannot be more that exempt income.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0In case where the Assessee has made suo moto <\/em>disallowance, the AO has to record proper satisfaction on why the claim of the assessee as to the quantum of\u00a0 suo moto <\/em>disallowance is not correct. (AY. 2002-03, 2008-09, 2009-10) (CA Nos. 104-109 of 2015 dt. 12-2-2018)<\/p>\n the Court held that disallowance cannot be made in the absence of proof that expenditure has actually been incurred in earning dividend income. If the\u00a0 AO\u00a0 has accepted in earlier years he cannot take a contrary stand if the facts and circumstances have not changed. In PCIT v. Oil Industries Development Board (2019) 262 Taxman 102 (SC), <\/em><\/strong>the Court held that In the absence of any exempt income, no disallowance is permissible (CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC) <\/em><\/strong>followed, Cheminvest <\/em><\/strong>Ltd v. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi)(HC) <\/em><\/strong>approved). (SLP No. 2755\/2019, dt. 16.02.2018)<\/p>\n After considering the aforesaid Supreme Court decision in case of Maxopp Investment and Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in case of State Bank\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 of Patiala, the Hon\u2019ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Nice Bombay Transport (P.)\u00a0\u00a0 Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 338 (Delhi-Trib.) <\/em><\/strong>held that disallowance under Section 14A does not apply to Stock in trade and has heldthe following:<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cNever apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you\u2019re right and you know it, speak your mind.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n – Mahatma Gandhi<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure \u2013 Exempt income \u2013 Stock in trade \u2013 Controlling interest \u2013 Principle of apportionment \u2013 Only that expenditure which is \u201cin relation to\u201d earning dividends can be disallowed \u2013 AO has to record proper satisfaction on why the claim of the assessee as to the quantum of suo moto disallowance is not correct. [S. 36(1)(iii), Rule. 8D]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13290","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-3sm","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13290","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13290"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13290\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13291,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13290\/revisions\/13291"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13290"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13290"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13290"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Issue<\/h3>\n
View<\/h3>\n
\n
Held<\/h3>\n
Editorial: Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) (HC) is affirmed. Decision of special Bench in ITO v. Daga Capital Management (2009) 312 ITR (AT) 1 (Mum.) (SB) is referred. In Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ltd v. DCIT(2017) 394 ITR 449\/247 Taxman 361\/151 DTR 89\/295 CTR 121 (SC)<\/h4>\n
\n
\n