KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

We note at the outset that the assessee’s instant four appeals instituted on 11-12-2020 suffer from identical delay of 226 days in filing which falls in Covid 19 pandemic outbreak period. The same stands condoned.

Next comes the assessee’s identical sole substantive ground that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in invoking sectionm14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance(s) of Rs.1,60,20,597/-,1,89,55,733/-, 1,85,43,887/-and 1,43,44,460/- casewise, respectively. Learned representative raises his solitary argument during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have taken into consideration the assessee’s entire investment than 2 to 646/PUN/2020 2013-14 to 2016-17 Kolte Patil Developers only those yielding exemption income in the relevant previous year(s) before us. We make it clear that he had neither pressed nor raised any other argument or ground; as the case may be. Mr. Walimbe has placed strong reliance on both the lower authorities’ orders.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival submissions and find force in assessee’s stand. The Case-law in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2015) 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB) and ACB India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del) has already decided the instant issue that as assesses investments yielding exempt only have to be taken into consideration whilst computing sec. 14A r.w.rule 8D. We thus uphold the impugned disallowance in principle and leave it open for the Assessing Officer to recompute the same as per law in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

These assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpsoes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.