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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purpose

ITA 4719/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Gandhi, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Continental Device India Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle0 6(2), C-120, Naraina Industrial Aread, New Delhi New Delhi. PAN : AAACC1835E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. R.K. Kapoor, CA Respondent by: Sh. Anil Gandhi, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 09/12/2021 Date of order : 09/12/2021 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.03.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi (“Ld. CIT…

Addl. CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi vs. Pnb Gilts Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6444/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. B.S. Anant, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Khateeb Yousuf, FCA &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Addl. CIT, Spcl. Range-7, vs. PNB Gilts Ltd., New Delhi. 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi. PAN : AAACP7685B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. B.S. Anant, Sr. DR Respondent by: Sh. Khateeb Yousuf, FCA & Ms. Sana Baqai, CA Date of hearing: 17.11.2021 Date of order : 08.12.2021 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals…

Rattanindia Power Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3295/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. S. Anant, Sr. D. R
Section 115JSection 14Section 14A

…m part of the total income as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee on the first day and the last day of the previous year. The assessee has submitted that the honourable Delhi High Court in ACB India Ltd versus Asst Commissioner of income tax (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Delhi) wherein it has been held that the for the purpose of Section 14 A, instead of taking into account total investment, investment activity but to dividend was required to be adopted and thereafter disallowance was to be arrived at. The claim of the assessee is that the opening balance and closing balance of the investments on which exempt in…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acquire Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3192/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sanjay Garg(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit Vs. M/S. Acquire Services Pvt. Circle – 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi Ground Floor, Central Wing, 124, Janpath Thapar House, Janpath Pan No. Aaacg 3351 K New Delhi-110 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By Shri Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…which was duly offered to tax in A.Y. 2012-13 and in respect of his contention he pointed to the copy to the return of income placed in the paper book. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT 374 ITR 108 (Del.) for the proposition that investment which do not give tax exempt income have to be excluded for computing the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. He thereafter submitted that as against the total operating in other expenses of Rs.87,51,000/- incurred by the assessee, the disallowance worked out by AO by invoking section 14A is almost double a…

Finolex Industries Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 706/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri C.M. Gargआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.706/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Finolex Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, D-1/10, Midc, Central Circle-1(2), Chinchwad, Pune 411 019 Pune Pan : Aaacf2634A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav Date Of Hearing : 09-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-11-2021 आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 14ASection 40

…of disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act. It was, however, requested that only the investments which yielded exempt income should be considered for the purpose of calculation of disallowance. 5. 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 earned and not the total investments. Similar view has been taken by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del)…

M/S. Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. Additional CIT, Range - 10, Kolkata

ITA 2184/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम / M/S. Kanoria Chemicals & Addl. Cit, Range-10, Industries Ltd Kolkata V/S. C/O Salapuria Jajodia & P-7 Chowringhee Co. 7 Chittaranjan Square, Kolkata-700 Avenue, Kolkata-72. 069. Pan: Aabck1291K अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. आयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम / Dcit, Circle-10 M/S. Kanoria P-7 Chowringhee Square, Chemicals & Industries V/S. 3Rd Kolkata-700 069, Limited, Park Plaza, 7Th Fl., 71 Park Street, Floor. Kolkata-700 016. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

Section 14ASection 43A

…the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. REI Agro’ (supra) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “ACB India Ltd Vs. ACIT” reported in 374 ITR 108(Del) directed the Ld. AO to consider only those investments upon which exempt income had been earned by the assessee. The Ld. DR could not point out any contrary decision on this issue. In view of this, this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Ground no. 2: 6. The department through ground no. 2 has contested the action of the Ld. CIT…

DCIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi vs. Icra Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 are allowed partly for statistical purposes and Cross Objection of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5707/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 145

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2011-12 And Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Vs. ICRA Ltd., Circel-12(1), 1105, Kailash Building, New Delhi 11th Floor, 26 Kasturba Marg, New Delhi PAN :AAACI0218B (Appellant) (Respondent) And C.O. No.8/Del/2018 [Arising out of ITA No.5707/Del/2017] Assessment Year: 2012-13 ICRA Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 1105, Kailash Building, Circel-12(1), 11th Floor, 26 Kasturba New Delhi Marg, New Delhi PAN :AAACI0218B (Appellant) (Respondent) De…

DCIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi vs. Icra Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 are allowed partly for statistical purposes and Cross Objection of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5706/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 145

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2011-12 And Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Vs. ICRA Ltd., Circel-12(1), 1105, Kailash Building, New Delhi 11th Floor, 26 Kasturba Marg, New Delhi PAN :AAACI0218B (Appellant) (Respondent) And C.O. No.8/Del/2018 [Arising out of ITA No.5707/Del/2017] Assessment Year: 2012-13 ICRA Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 1105, Kailash Building, Circel-12(1), 11th Floor, 26 Kasturba New Delhi Marg, New Delhi PAN :AAACI0218B (Appellant) (Respondent) De…

Thomson Press (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 9, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 4308/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 195(2)Section 40

…estment which comprises of dividend yielding investment as well as non-dividend yielding investment. The assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in ACB India ltd. vs ACIT 5 | P a g e ITA Nos. 4306 to 4308/Del/2017 (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del.). The Learned CIT(A) accepted this contention of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to consider the investment which have yielded the exempt income while computing the average investment for the purpose of disallowance under Rule-8D. Further, the Assessing Officer has also been directed to verify the quantum of financial cost b…

Thomson Press (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 9, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 4307/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 195(2)Section 40

…estment which comprises of dividend yielding investment as well as non-dividend yielding investment. The assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in ACB India ltd. vs ACIT 5 | P a g e ITA Nos. 4306 to 4308/Del/2017 (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del.). The Learned CIT(A) accepted this contention of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to consider the investment which have yielded the exempt income while computing the average investment for the purpose of disallowance under Rule-8D. Further, the Assessing Officer has also been directed to verify the quantum of financial cost b…

Thomson Press (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 9, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 4306/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 195(2)Section 40

…estment which comprises of dividend yielding investment as well as non-dividend yielding investment. The assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in ACB India ltd. vs ACIT 5 | P a g e ITA Nos. 4306 to 4308/Del/2017 (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del.). The Learned CIT(A) accepted this contention of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to consider the investment which have yielded the exempt income while computing the average investment for the purpose of disallowance under Rule-8D. Further, the Assessing Officer has also been directed to verify the quantum of financial cost b…

Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -6, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 467/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…he amount disallowed 4 Kirloskar Oil Engines Limited by the AO at Rs.1.64 crore (with average value of investments at 01-04-2014 to 30-09-2014). For taking Nil figure of investments at the end of the year, the ld. AR relied on ACB India Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del) holding 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 earned and not the total investments. 5. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee was holding inve…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. Infres Methodex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Department stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1126/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15
Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…g of fact on the issue and has computed the disallowance after excluding those investments which were not related to the earning of dividend income. Such is also the mandate of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 374 ITR 108 (Delhi) and plethora of other judgments. We also note that the assessee is not in appeal before this Tribunal against the amount of disallowance U/s 14A as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue and we dismiss the grounds raised by the Department in this regard.…

Royal Twinkle Star Club P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 14, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4948/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Royal Twinkle Star Club Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, 317/318, Parvati Industrial Central Circle-2(4), Estate, Sun Mill Compound, (Erstwhile Central Circle – 14), Lower Parel (W), Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, 8Th Floor, Mumbai - 400013 Mumbai Pan: Aaecr0618L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiro Rai (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Bharat Andhle (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/09/2021

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai (AR)For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle (DR)
Section 14A

…exceed the exempt income earned during the year. In support of such contention, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: 1. ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 ITAT (Delhi Tribunal Special Bench) 2. ACB India Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Delhi) 3. PCIT VS. Ajit Ramakant Phatarpekar [2021 429 ITR 319 (Bombay) 5. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the AO and learned Commissioner (Appeals). 6. We have considered rival submissions in the light of decision relied upon and perused the materials on record. Undisputedly, in the year under 3 As…

Thrill Park Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7157/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2021AY 2016-17
Section 10(35)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…om which does not or shall not form part of the total income" has to be considered and not all the investments as done by the AO. The Appellant, in rapport of the above contention, -rely on judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in he case of ACB India Limited [374 ITR 108] wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under: “4. The AO, instead of adopting the average value of investment of which income is tot part of the total income i.e. the value of tax exempt investment, chose to factor n the total investment itself. Even though the CIT (Appeals) noticed the exact value of the investment 3 Thrill Park Limited…

Hero Future Energies P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee are partly allowed holding that disallowance confirmed by the ld

ITA 4860/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Somit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. D. R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s only Rs.11.55 crores and 0.5% of those investments towards administrative expenditure would be only Rs.5,77,861/-. We find that the contentions of the ld. AR are supported by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Limited Vs. ACIT 374 ITR 108 (Del). In view of this the disallowance could only be made of Rs. 5,77,861/- under Rule 8D out of which the assessee has already disallowed on its own a sum of Rs.1,52,976/-. Therefore, net disallowance could only be restricted to Rs. 4,24,885/-. Therefore, ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed holding that disallow…

Ht Media Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addlcit, Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly

ITA 1876/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Sh. V.P. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(1)

…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: “CIT(A) vide para 5.1d of the order…

Manali Petrochemicals Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as

ITA 2824/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2824/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Manali Petro Chemicals Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Spic House, 88 Mount Road, Income Tax, Guindy, Chennai -600 032. Large Tax Payer Unit-1 Chennai. Pan: Aaacm 3404D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…sidered for computing average value of investments to determine disallowances under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 . This proposition is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. ACB India Ltd. Vs ACIT, reported in 374 ITR 108. This proposition is further supported by the decision of ITAT., Delhi Special Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt.Ltd., reported in 165 ITD 27 . Therefore, we are of the considered view that issue needs to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer in light of averments made by the 6 assessee that it has sufficient own funds t…

National Building Construction Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 18(1), New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order

ITA 4287/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblea N D Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. D. R
Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 37(1)Section 40

…Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(i) and (ii) can be made. Further for working out disallowance under 8D(2)(iii) clearly the average of investment with exempt income should be taken. Such is the mandate of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. 374 ITR 108. Based on this the disallowance comes to Rs.68,68 lakhs, which is the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee. In view of this Ground No. 1 – 3 of the appeal of the Assessing Officer does not merit any consideration and hence dismissed. 19. The disallowance of Rs.1,92,30,000/- deleted by the ld. CIT (Appeals) is challenged by Ground No. 4 hold…

Addlcit, Special Range-6, Neww Delhi vs. National Building Construction Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order

ITA 4165/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblea N D Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. D. R
Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 37(1)Section 40

…Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(i) and (ii) can be made. Further for working out disallowance under 8D(2)(iii) clearly the average of investment with exempt income should be taken. Such is the mandate of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. 374 ITR 108. Based on this the disallowance comes to Rs.68,68 lakhs, which is the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee. In view of this Ground No. 1 – 3 of the appeal of the Assessing Officer does not merit any consideration and hence dismissed. 19. The disallowance of Rs.1,92,30,000/- deleted by the ld. CIT (Appeals) is challenged by Ground No. 4 hold…