ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT

374 ITR 108High Court2015#205 most cited

What is ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

When computing disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act using Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, only investments that have actually yielded exempt income during the relevant previous year are to be considered for the calculation.

364

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACB India Ltd v ACIT · Section 14A · Rule 8D · disallowance under Section 14A · expenditure for exempt income · investments yielding exempt income · computation of disallowance · Delhi High Court 374 ITR 108 · non-yielding investments · average investments Rule 8D

Also reported as

62 Taxmann.com 71235 Taxmann 22

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 1961Section 80ICSection 153DSection 132(1)Section 56(2)(x)

Issues it is cited on

section 153a proceedingsstrategic investmentsection 14a(2)section 80icdisallowance under section 14asection 115jb(2)section 56(2)(x)valuation of sharesdisallowance u/s 14asection 139(5)disallowance of interest expendituresection 92b

Judgments citing ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT

Aurangabad Electricals Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1197/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rohit TapadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…tment which yielded exempt income alone has to be considered for the purpose of arriving at average value of investment, on the similar lines, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 374 ITR 108 and the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Marg Ltd. Vs. CIT, 318 CTR (Mad.) 148 and followed subsequently by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shriram Ownership Trust 318 CTR (Mad.) 233 and also by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank Vs. Jt. CIT, 95 Taxman.com 41 (Kar.). 12. In li…

Aurangabad Electricals Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1196/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Rohit TapadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…tment which yielded exempt income alone has to be considered for the purpose of arriving at average value of investment, on the similar lines, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 374 ITR 108 and the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Marg Ltd. Vs. CIT, 318 CTR (Mad.) 148 and followed subsequently by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shriram Ownership Trust 318 CTR (Mad.) 233 and also by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank Vs. Jt. CIT, 95 Taxman.com 41 (Kar.). 12. In li…

Aurangabad Electricals Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1195/PUN/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Rohit TapadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…tment which yielded exempt income alone has to be considered for the purpose of arriving at average value of investment, on the similar lines, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 374 ITR 108 and the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Marg Ltd. Vs. CIT, 318 CTR (Mad.) 148 and followed subsequently by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shriram Ownership Trust 318 CTR (Mad.) 233 and also by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank Vs. Jt. CIT, 95 Taxman.com 41 (Kar.). 12. In li…

Hinduja Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Range -7(1)(2) (Earlier DCIT 6(1)), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal of assessee is dismissed and order of Ld

ITA 7154/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalhinduja Finance Ltd. 171, Hinduja House, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 Pan: Aagca0533R ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit, Range-7(1)(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ruturaj Gurjar Respondent By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/05/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 05.09.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010- 11. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming: I) The Disallowance Made U/S.14A Of The Income Tax Act At Rs.7, 06,985/- As Against Disallowance Of Rs.2, 52,536/- As Computed By The Appellant. The Disallowance Made Of Rs.4, 54,449/- May Please Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Sh. B.K. Bagchi, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 14A

…investment was in foreign subsidiaries (the dividend income from which is not exempt), hence, provisions of Sec 14A not applicable to the extent of investment made in foreign subsidiaries”. The Delhi High Court has confirmed the above views in ACB India Ltd.- 347 ITR 108, where it is held that for the purpose of calculating disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r.8D(2)(iii), the AO has to adopt average value of investment of which income is not part of total income and not the entire investment. 1.6 In so far as investments in stock-in-trade are concerned, the same cannot be made. In this context, reliance is placed on: a)…

Continental Device India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-6(2), New Delhi

ITA 5818/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R.Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Continental Device India Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle -6(2), C-120, Naraina, Delhi Industrial Area, New Delhi - 110028 Pan : Aaacc1835E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 14A

…value of investment from which tax free income was received, had already been disallowed in view of the decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of ACIT Vs Vireet Investment Pvt Ltd (2017) 82 taxmann.com 415 and ACB India Ltd Vs ACIT (2015) 374 ITR 108. The Ld. AO was not satisfied with the explanation of assessee and he proceeded to make the disallowance as per Rule 8D. 3. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) held that the disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the total exempt income claimed by the appellant, therefore the AO was directed to restrict the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 37,94,067/- observi…

Sansera Engineering Limited (Formerly Known As Sansera Engineering Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)- 14, Bangalore

ITA 132/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Sansera Engineering Ltd., Cit(A) - 14, Vs. 143/A, Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru. Bommasandra Industrial Estate, Bommasandra Post, Bengaluru – 560 105. Pan : Aaecs 2440 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…D is to be in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income and this can be done only by taking into consideration the investment which has given rise to exempt income which does not form part of the total income (ACB India Ltd. v. ACTT (374 ITR 108), REI Agro Ltd. v. DCIT (144 ITD 141), DCIT v. Teenlok Advisory Services (P.) Ltd. (159 ITD 991)). In the present case, the assessee had earned dividend income during the year only from the investments in mutual funds and not from the investments in subsidiaries. Therefore, for the purpose of calculating "average investments", opening and closing…

M/S. Mahanivesh (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5348/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaita No. 5348/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Annunav Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…Counsel for the assessee that only those investments which have yielded dividend income should be considered for calculating the average investment in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. Vs ACIT reported in 374 ITR 108 and PCIT Vs Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.) Ltd. reported in 414 ITR 122. Since, as per the decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional 11 Mahanivesh (India) Pvt. Ltd. High Court only the investments which have yielded dividend income are to be considered for calculating the average investment, therefore, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the…

Biz Secure Labs Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

ITA 2603/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sonjoy Sarma"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Biz Secure Labs Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 1206, Sadashiv Peth, Circle- 1(1), Pune 411 030 Pune Pan : Aadcb6188L Appellant Respondent

Section 80I

…value of investments. He simply requested that only such investments as yielded the exempt income during the year under consideration should be considered for the purpose of the calculation. 21. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ACB India Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del) has held that the average value of investments, for the purposes of Rule 8D(2)(iii), should be confined to those securities in respect of which exempt income is 23 Biz Secure Labs Pvt. Ltd. A.Yrs. 2012-13 & 2013-14 earned and not the total investments. Similar view has been taken by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs…

Biz Secure Labs Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

ITA 460/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sonjoy Sarma"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Biz Secure Labs Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 1206, Sadashiv Peth, Circle- 1(1), Pune 411 030 Pune Pan : Aadcb6188L Appellant Respondent

Section 80I

…value of investments. He simply requested that only such investments as yielded the exempt income during the year under consideration should be considered for the purpose of the calculation. 21. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ACB India Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del) has held that the average value of investments, for the purposes of Rule 8D(2)(iii), should be confined to those securities in respect of which exempt income is 23 Biz Secure Labs Pvt. Ltd. A.Yrs. 2012-13 & 2013-14 earned and not the total investments. Similar view has been taken by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune vs. Biz Secure Labs Pvt.Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

ITA 2622/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sonjoy Sarma"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Biz Secure Labs Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 1206, Sadashiv Peth, Circle- 1(1), Pune 411 030 Pune Pan : Aadcb6188L Appellant Respondent

Section 80I

…value of investments. He simply requested that only such investments as yielded the exempt income during the year under consideration should be considered for the purpose of the calculation. 21. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ACB India Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del) has held that the average value of investments, for the purposes of Rule 8D(2)(iii), should be confined to those securities in respect of which exempt income is 23 Biz Secure Labs Pvt. Ltd. A.Yrs. 2012-13 & 2013-14 earned and not the total investments. Similar view has been taken by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs…

Continental Device India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-6(2), New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8314/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ision and other judicial pronouncements referred to above. There are various no. of judgments wherein it has been held that only those investments have to be considered which have actually yielded tax free income during the year;- i) ACB India vs. ACIT [2015J 374 ITR 108 (Delhi); ii) Chem Invest vs. CIT [2015J 370 ITR 33 (Delhi). iii) Pro CIT vs, IL & FS Energy Development Co. Ltd. (2017) Taxman.com 186 (Delhi). iv) Cit vs. Holcim India (P) Ltd. [2015} 272 CTR 282 (Delhi). v) HT Media Ltd. vs. Pro CIT [201. 7-TIOL-1. 643-HC-Delhi- IT]. vi) Pro CIT V. India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd. [201.5] 376 ITR 553/[2016] 66 t…

Ht Media Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7984/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 14A

…on this aspect are set aside. However, its observations with respect to the calculation of disallowance u/s 14A being confined to investments that derived tax exempt income are valid in the light of the Division Bench ruling in ACB India Ltd. Vs. ACIT, (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del.). In view of the above clarification, the ITAT’s order, to the extent that it makes observations with respect to exclusion of income derived from strategic investments, is hereby set aside.” 7. Following the order of the Hon’ble High Court, the revised disallowance is comprehensively determined as under: 5 “CIT(A) vide para 5.1d of the ord…

Jindal India Powertech Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Bulandshahr

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4916/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrir.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Though Video Conferencing) Jindal India Powertech Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Plot No. 12, Local Shopping Bulandhahr Complex, Sector-B-1, Vasantkunj, New Delhi Pan: Aabcj9243J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akhil Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…income but not otherwise. 4.1 On the contrary the ld. DR vehemently relied upon and supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 4.2 We observe that the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court (jurisdictional) in the case of ACB Investment P Ltd. v. ACIT ( 2015) 374 ITR 108 (Delhi) (HC)dealt with the identical issue and held that for making disallowance u/s u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(iii) of the Rules, the value of tax exempt investments should be considered instead of total investments for adopting average value of investments of income which is not part of the total income. In simple words, while making…

Jindal Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5992/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16 Jindal Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 110, Babar Road, Special Range-5, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacj0719Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : .02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 14A(1)

….2 The ld. Counsel for the assessee, referring to the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi SB) and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT, reported in 374 ITR 108, submitted that for computing the average value of investments, only those investments which had yielded dividend income during the year has to be considered. 5 6.3 He submitted that after considering all these decisions and considering the investments on which the assessee has received dividend income, the average investment comes to Rs.16,55,…

Jindal Export & Import (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5991/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Jindal Export & Import (P) Ltd., Vs Dcit, 110, Babar Road, Circle-13(2), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacj0474G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : .02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…that has yielded exempt income during the year has to be 5 considered for computing the average value of investment u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 10. We find, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT, reported in 374 ITR 108 has held that for the purpose of provisions of section 14A, instead of taking into account the total investment, the investment attributable to dividend was required to be adopted and, thereafter, the disallowance was to be arrived at. We, therefore, deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to recompute the disal…

M/S Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5266/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Finvest Ltd. Dcit D3, P3B, District Centre, Vs Circle 21 (1) Saket New Delhi New Delhi-110017 Pan No. Aafcs6801H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 14A

…imited and, therefore, only those investments which actually yielded tax exempt income during the year have to be taken into consideration. Strong reliance was placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of ACB India 374 ITR 108. 7. The Counsel further stated that in so far as investment in the shares of Karnataka Bank Limited is concerned the same was invested in A.Y.2007-08. It is the say of the Counsel that on identical set of facts this Tribunal in A.Y.2010-11 has deleted the disallowances made u/s. 14A of the Act. 8. Per contra the DR strongly placed reliance on th…

Sun Vaccum Formers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1965/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…vant year, then average investment comes down to Rs.8,96,96,668/-as compared to total investment considered by the ld. CIT (A) at Rs.28,16,52,270/-. Now, it is well settled by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 which has been followed in catena of decisions that only those investments are to be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance of average value of investment for the purpose of disallowance under Rule 8D which have exempt income during the year. If that principle is adopted here then disallowance will work out to Rs.5,56,820/- as d…

Dcm Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi

ITA 603/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Yagyasaini Kakkar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.183/DEL/2019 Assessment Year 2013-14 Addl. CIT, Special Range-3, vs. DCM Ltd., New Delhi. 601, Vikrant Tower, Rajendra Place, New Delhi. PAN: AAACD1012E (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.603/DEL/2019 Assessment Year 2013-14 DCM Ltd., vs. Addl. CIT, 601, Vikrant Tower, Special Range-3, Rajendra Place, New Delhi New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACD1012E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri V.P. Gupta, Advocate a/w Shri Anunav Kumar, Advocate. Respondent by: Ms. Yagyasai…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Dcm Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 183/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Yagyasaini Kakkar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.183/DEL/2019 Assessment Year 2013-14 Addl. CIT, Special Range-3, vs. DCM Ltd., New Delhi. 601, Vikrant Tower, Rajendra Place, New Delhi. PAN: AAACD1012E (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.603/DEL/2019 Assessment Year 2013-14 DCM Ltd., vs. Addl. CIT, 601, Vikrant Tower, Special Range-3, Rajendra Place, New Delhi New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACD1012E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri V.P. Gupta, Advocate a/w Shri Anunav Kumar, Advocate. Respondent by: Ms. Yagyasai…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2559/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgan, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…it comes to Rs.33,12,333/-, hence, it also not in dispute. Only dispute is relating to the disallowance u/r. 8D(2)(ii) of the rules, i.e., interest component. In view of the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High court in the case of Acb India Ltd. vs. ACIT 374 ITR 108, for the purpose of computing the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act only such investments which yielded exempt income during the year should be taken into consideration, but not the entire investment. Going by that principle, we find that during the year, the investment in Karnataka Bank Ltd. alone yielded dividend income. Assessee’s contention th…