ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PANATONE FINVEST LIMITED, MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated
30.03.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi
[in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2006-07. The relevant grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under:
1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in allowing assessee the actual expenses related to inv
14A, ignoring the Act?"
2. "Whether o the Ld. CIT(A the Act revea accordance w the extent pro and clause (f) the book prof income to wh
Section 11 or 3. "Whether o law the Ld. C appreciating t the Finance A clause (f) to ex
4. "Whether o
Ld. CIT(A) err
Rs.88, 19,62, suo moto adm clause (f) of ex
5. "Whether o
Ld.CIT(A) err appreciating substitute the computed und
2. The Ld. Depar there was a delay of copy of the letter file due to excess work lo other time barring m which was due to bo the delay in filing ap adjudication.
ITA vestments yielding exempt income w/s g the provision of explanation 1 () of Sec on the facts and circumstances of the ca
A) failed to appreciate that perusal of Se als that the tinkering with P & L a/c.
with the provision of the Company's Act is ovided in explanation 1 to Section 115JB
) to explanation 1 to Section 115JB (2) of fit to be increased with the expenditure r hich Section 10 (other than Section 10(
12 of the Act applies?*
on the facts and in the circumstances of t
CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u the fact that provisions of Section 14A(1)
Act 2001 w.e.f. 01.04.1962 and ignoring xplanation (1) to Section 115JB(2).*
on the facts and circumstances of the cas red in deleting the disallowance u/s.14A
,087/ - without appreciating the fact tha mitted and requested to restrict the disal xplanation (1) to Section 115JB(2)p"
on the facts and circumstances of the cas red in deleting the disallowance u/
the fact that the object of deeming p e total income computed under normal pr der MAT provisions u/s. 115JB»
rtmental Representative (DR) f 22 days in filing this appeal.
ed by the AO wherein he has oad of filing writ petitions, scrut matters, delay occurred in filing ona fide reasons. In view of rea ppeal is condoned and appeal
Panatone Finvest Ltd
2
A No. 3249/MUM/2024
s. 115JB r.w.s.
tion 1 1 5JB of ase and in law, ection 115JB of as prepared in s permissible to JB (2) of the Act the Act permits relatable to any (38) of the Act.
the case and in u/s.14A without was inserted in the provision of se and law, the A amounting of at the assessee llowance under se and law, the /s.14A without provision is to rovision by that submitted that He submitted a mentioned that tiny reports and present appeal, asons explained, is admitted for 3. At the outset, that tax effect involve limit of Rs.60 lakhs p
(CBDT) for preferring
No. 09/2024 dated 1
of the tax effect has b is as under:
In the matter of ACIT 2(2H
Calculation of tax effect- P
Para 5.1- Tax effect = (X) T chargeable had such incom against which appeal is file
Determination of X- Para 5

Particulars

Where A= total income ass general provisions

Where B= total income tha been chargeable had the to assessed as per general pr reduced by the amount of issues under general provi

Where C= Total income ass
Section 115JB

Where D= Total income tha been chargeable had the to assessed as per 115JB wa the amount of disputed iss
115JB

ITA the Ld. Authorized Represent ed in the present appeal is belo prescribed by the Central Board g appeal before the Tribunal v
17th September, 2024. The relev been filed by the Ld. Authorized
H1) vs Panatone Finvest Limited- ITA No 2
Paras 5.1 and 5.2 of the Circular 5 of 202
Tax on total income assessed (-) (Y) Tax th me been reduced by the amount of incom ed
5.2- tax on assessed income for 115JB ca
Amount in INR

Remarks sessed as per (2,85,38,570)

As per or dated 31

at would have otal income rovision been the disputed ision
(2,85,38,570) sessed as per 98,69,516

at would have otal income as reduced by sues under Nil (98,69,516-
98,69,516)

As the to under se a negativ

Panatone Finvest Ltd
3
A No. 3249/MUM/2024
ative submitted ow the threshold d of Direct Taxes vide its Circular vant calculation d Representative
249/Mum/2024
24 dated 15 March 2024
hat would have been me in respect of issues ases X= (A-B) + (C-D) s rder u/s 143(3) rws 254
1 December 201 8
otal income chargeable ection 115JB cannot be ve figure.

X= (A-B) + (C-D)

Tax on X @7.5% + Applica

Determination of Y

Tax effect = X-Y

98,69,516

ble Cess
7,55,018

As per or dated 31
Nil (98,69,516-
98,69,516)

As the to under se a negativ
'tax that chargeab negative

7,55,018

Under th threshol
50,00,00
2024 da issued b uld not controvert the computa ittedly below the threshold limi
Accordingly, the appeal of t hdrawn with liberty to file lling the appeal in case, the ta more than the prescribed limit exceptions to the said Circular o he appeal of the Revenue is dism ced in the open Court on 21/0 CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA
Panatone Finvest Ltd
4
A No. 3249/MUM/2024
rder u/s 143(3) rws 254
1 December 2018
otal income chargeable ection 115JB cannot be ve figure. Furthermore, t would have been ble' can also not be a figure.
he permissible monetary d limit of INR
00 as per Circular 5 of ted 15 March 2024
by CBDT ation of the tax it prescribed by the Revenue is Miscellaneous ax effect in the or the appeal is f CBDT.
missed.
02/2025. d/-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER

Mumbai;
Dated: 21/02/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

ITA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Panatone Finvest Ltd
5
A No. 3249/MUM/2024
R, gistrar) umbai