ACIT-16(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TV18 BROADCAST LIMITED, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4724/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 February 2020AY 2014-154 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the direction of the CIT(A) to recompute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) by considering only those investments from which exempt income was earned. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A should not be considered for computing book profits under Section 115JB.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the deletion of disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules. The assessee argued that only investments yielding dividend income should be considered for disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to investments yielding exempt income, and whether such disallowance impacts book profit computation under Section 115JB.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 115JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HONBLEShri Nimesh Vora & Shri Mohit Khandelwal Shri Maurya Pratap

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora &, Shri Mohit Khandelwal
For Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap
Hearing: 04.12.2019Pronounced: 19.02.2020

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 29.05.2018 for the A.Y. 2014-15.

2.

The first issue in the appeal of the revenue is relating to deletion of disallowance of ₹.3,84,32,677/- made u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) of I.T. Rules while computing income under normal provisions of the Act.

(A.Y. 2014-15) M/s. TV18 Broadcast Limited 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Television Eighteen India Ltd., which was later merged with the assessee company i.e. TV18 Broadcast Limited. It is submitted that the Tribunal by order dated 19.06.2019 in ITA.No. 4545/DEL/2015 at Para 19 following the decision of the Special Bench in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [165 ITD 27] held that only those investments which yielded dividend income should be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D (2)(iii) of I.T. Rules.

4.

Ld. DR supported the orders of the Authorities below.

5.

On a perusal of the Ld. CIT(A) order, we observe that the Ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule 8D(2) of I.T. Rules by considering only those investments from which assessee has earned exempt income during the year against which the revenue is in appeal before us. We also observe that the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Television Eighteen India Ltd., while disposing off the appeal in ITA.No. 4545/DEL/2015 dated 19.06.2019 held as under: - “19. In respect of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of I.T. Rules is concerned following the Special Bench decision in the case of Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., (supra), we hold that only those investments which yielded dividend income should be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to recompute

(A.Y. 2014-15) M/s. TV18 Broadcast Limited the disallowance U/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act in the light of our above observations.”

6.

Issue being identical, respectfully following the said decision we uphold the direction given by the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the ground raised by the Revenue.

7.

Coming to the last issue the revenue is challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r Rule 8D should not be considered for the purposes of computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act.

8.

We find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Special Bench in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [165 ITD 27] wherein it was held that computation under clause (f) of explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act is to be made without resorting to computation as contemplated u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of I.T. Rules. Thus, respectfully following the said decision, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the ground raised by the Revenue.

9.

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 19th February, 2020

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →