Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI
BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM
ITA No.325/Pan./2017 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/s. Balaji Mines and Minerals Private Asst. CIT-1, Limited Margao Range, Goa Vs. Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Panaji, Goa-403 001 PAN/GIR No. AAACB 7003 P (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri P. J. Pardiwalla : Shri Y. V. Raviraj Respondent by Date of Hearing : 15.11.2018 : 14.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement
O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:
This is an appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)– Panaji, pertaining to assessment year 2013-14.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under:
i. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of expenditure of Rs.17,79,295/- u/s. 14A of the ITA made by the assessing officer by holding that such disallowance was mandatory under Rule 8(D)(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 without establishing nexust between exempt income earned and expenditure incurred.
Without prejudice to the above ii. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that as per Rule 8(D)(2)(iii), only those investemtns which yielded exempt income during the year were to be considered for computing average value of investments.
At the outset, in this case, the ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that he is only
pressing for the without prejudice ground. He submitted that the said issue is covered by
the ITAT Special Bench decision in the case of Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. and ANR.
(2017) 165 ITD 0027 (Delhi) ((SB)).
2 ITA No.324/Pan./2017 4. Upon hearing both the counsel and perusing the records, we find that the ITAT
Special Bench in the case of Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has expounded that for
the purpose of computation under rule 8D(2)(iii) only those investments which yielded
exempt income during the year were to be considered for computing the average value of
the investment. We direct accordingly.
In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced by listing the result on the Notice Board of the Bench under Rule 34(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. Sd/ Sd/- - RAM LAL NEGI SHAMIM YAHYA JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 14.01.2019 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The CIT(A); (4) The CIT, Panji City concerned; (5) The DR, ITAT, Panji; (6) Guard file.
By Order Roshani, Sr. PS
(Sr. P.S./P.S.) ITAT