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.

How many judgments cite ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT?

364 judgments on BharatTax cite ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT (374 ITR 108), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 1961, Section 80IC, Section 153D.

ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT (374 ITR 108)

Dharampal Premchand Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

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

ITA 4460/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. GN Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10ASection 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 73

…i) of the Rules, such an amount should have been computed only qua the investment which yielded exempt income during the relevant previous year. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs ACIT, 374 ITR 108 (Del) and the decision of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in REI Agro Ltd. vs DCIT, 144 ITD 141n (Kol-Trib). 14. Coming to this submission of the learned AR,in view of the decision in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs ACIT, 374 ITR 108 (Del) and REI Agro Ltd. vs DCIT, 144 ITD 141n (Kol-Trib), the appeal against which was dismissed by the Hon’ble C…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Religare Securities Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 574/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 37(1)

…ly, submitted that the assessee can notwithstanding suo motu disallowance at a higher amount, raise ground seeking correct computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd., 374 ITR 108, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that only such investments which yielded exempt dividend income during the year are required to be considered for the purpose of disallowance. Referring to the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Religare Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No.1549/Del/…

M/S. Religare Enterprise Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 37(1)

…ly, submitted that the assessee can notwithstanding suo motu disallowance at a higher amount, raise ground seeking correct computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd., 374 ITR 108, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that only such investments which yielded exempt dividend income during the year are required to be considered for the purpose of disallowance. Referring to the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Religare Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No.1549/Del/…

Unipatch Rubber Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Special Range-9, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9231/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am 3Mm Arcffct . / Ita No.9231/Del/2019 M < Ul Wk / Assessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. S. Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…mited issue which has been raised by the assessee before us is that the disallowance, if any, is to be restricted to the investment to which the tax free income is attributable. 8. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd., vs. ACIT [2015] 374 ITR 108 (Delhi) has laid down the aforesaid proposition and held that for computing the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) the value of investment, was to be adopted at the investments to which the dividend income was attributable. 9. Applying the same parity of reasoning, we direct the AO to re-compute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6482/MUM/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6482 /Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) State Bank Of India बिधम/ Acit Range-2(2) Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. Ita. No. 6822/Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Acit Range-2(2) बिधम/ State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs8577K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi Mehta Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000-01. Ita. No.6482/M/2010 6822/M/2010 A.Y. 2000-01 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-05, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000- 01. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)

Section 14ASection 43D

…in percentage of exempted income as has been ITA. No.6482/M/2010 6822/M/2010 A.Y. 2000-01 held in a number of decision by various Tribunal and Hon‟ble High Courts. Reliance was made in case of Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT (378 ITR 33), ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT (374 ITR 108). The ld. AR further conceded that similar ground was restored to the file of AO in assessee‟s own case for AY 1996-97 & 1998-99. It was submitted that the AO despite direction of Tribunal passed a non- speaking order and no relief was granted. It was finally prayed that the Tribunal may issue appropriate directions while setting aside the matter…

Padmini Vna Mechatronics (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee partly allowed

ITA 1027/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. D.R

Section 10(38)Section 14A

…. Thus, calculation of assessee is correct. It was submitted that investments which do not provide exempted income is not to be considered for averaging purposes. The assessee relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd., 374 ITR 108 (Del.) in which it was held that “the average value of investment should be taken only relating to such income which is not the part of the total income i.e., the value of the tax exempt investment. In otherwords, the average of such investments has to be taken on which exempted income has been earned during the year.” The Ld. CIT(A), however, di…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5525/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up

Section 14ASection 35D

…ule 8D(2)(iii) investment which has yielded exempt income should only be considered for the purpose of disallowance. In support of the claim the learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd Vs ACIT 374 ITR 108 and special bench Tribunal decision in the case of ACIT Vs Vireet Investments P ltd 165 ITD 27. 5.10 The Ld. Counsel submitted that in view of the arguments above, the disallowance under section 14A of the Act might be deleted. 5.11 On the other hand, the Department Representative (DR) relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted at Ld. CI…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5524/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up

Section 14ASection 35D

…ule 8D(2)(iii) investment which has yielded exempt income should only be considered for the purpose of disallowance. In support of the claim the learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd Vs ACIT 374 ITR 108 and special bench Tribunal decision in the case of ACIT Vs Vireet Investments P ltd 165 ITD 27. 5.10 The Ld. Counsel submitted that in view of the arguments above, the disallowance under section 14A of the Act might be deleted. 5.11 On the other hand, the Department Representative (DR) relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted at Ld. CI…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5492/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up

Section 14ASection 35D

…ule 8D(2)(iii) investment which has yielded exempt income should only be considered for the purpose of disallowance. In support of the claim the learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd Vs ACIT 374 ITR 108 and special bench Tribunal decision in the case of ACIT Vs Vireet Investments P ltd 165 ITD 27. 5.10 The Ld. Counsel submitted that in view of the arguments above, the disallowance under section 14A of the Act might be deleted. 5.11 On the other hand, the Department Representative (DR) relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted at Ld. CI…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5491/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up

Section 14ASection 35D

…ule 8D(2)(iii) investment which has yielded exempt income should only be considered for the purpose of disallowance. In support of the claim the learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd Vs ACIT 374 ITR 108 and special bench Tribunal decision in the case of ACIT Vs Vireet Investments P ltd 165 ITD 27. 5.10 The Ld. Counsel submitted that in view of the arguments above, the disallowance under section 14A of the Act might be deleted. 5.11 On the other hand, the Department Representative (DR) relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted at Ld. CI…

Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd., Coimbatore vs. Addl.CIT, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 1387/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. M/S.Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd., The Addl.Cit, Perianaickenpalayam, Corporate Range, S.R.K.V. Post, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 020. [Pan: Aaacl 5244 N ] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent) : Mr. R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. अपीलाथ+ क. ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. M.Srinivasa Rao, Cit ,-यथ+ क. ओर से /Respondent By : 07.11.2019 सुनवाई क. तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2020 घोषणा क. तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Appellant: Mr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CITFor Respondent: 07.11.2019

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी र"मत कोचर, लेखा सद"य के सम' BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2012-13 v. M/s.Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd., The Addl.CIT, Perianaickenpalayam, Corporate Range, S.R.K.V. Post, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 020. [PAN: AAACL 5244 N ] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent) : Mr. R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. अपीलाथ+ क. ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT ,-यथ+ क. ओर से /Respondent by : 07.11.2019 सुनवाई क…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Info Edge India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 2968/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Info Edge India Ltd, Circle-12(1), Gf-12A, 94, Meghdoot New Delhi Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan: Aaaci1838D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 14Section 143Section 145Section 14ASection 37

…d be considered for the purpose of working out average investment for computation of disallowance under rule 8D in accordance with section 14 A of the act. The above view has been upheld by the honourable Delhi High Court in case of ACB India Ltd versus a CIT 374 ITR 108 (Delhi) (2015). In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A accordingly, ground number two of the appeal is dismissed. ACIT Vs Info Edge India Ltd 14. In the result appeal of the AO is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08/01/2020 - - (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 08/01/2020 A K Keot…

DCIT Corporate Circle 5(2), Chennai vs. Pdr Investments Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1273/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, JCITFor Respondent: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

Section 14A

…Ld. counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer computed the disallowance by applying Rule 8D(2) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Placing reliance on the judgement of Delhi High Court in ACB India 3 I.T.A. No.1273/Chny/18 Limited v. ACIT (2015) 374 ITR 108, the Ld. counsel submitted that only those investments which yielded income, have to be taken for computing the disallowance under limb (ii) and (iii) of Rule 8D(2). In this case, according to the Ld. counsel, the Assessing Officer has taken the entire investments even though majority of them has not resulted in earning of any income. Placing rel…

DCIT- CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Hubtown Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2764/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S. Hubtown Ltd. Room No.1928 19Th Floor Akruti Trade Centre, 6Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point Road No.7, Marol-Midc Mumbai-400 021 Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 093

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…, further submitted that if any suo- moto disallowances made by the assesee exceeds the exempt income, it may be restricted to the extent of the exempt income. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB vs ACIT (374 ITR 108) and CIT vs Interglobe Enterprises Ltd. In ITA No. 456/2016, dated 19/08/2016. The assesee has also relied upon the Special Bench decision of ITAT, in the case of ACIT vs Vireet Investments Pvt Ltd, 165 ITD 27 (Delhi). The ld. AR, further submitted that insofar as, re-computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961 towards disallowance…

Dlf Projects Ltd.(Formerly Known As Dt Projectsd Ltd), Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 339/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. DLF Projects Vs. DCIT, Ltd.(formerly known as DT Circle-1(1), Project Ltd.), Gurgaon 3rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Arjun Marg, DLF City, Phase- 1, Gurgaon. PAN :AACCD3093R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA Respondent by Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr.DR Date of hearing 17.10.2019 Date of pronouncement 31.10.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 08/11/2016 passed by…

Infolink Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 09, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-

ITA 572/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Infolink Solutions Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of 45/2225, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, Central Circle-09, Samadhan Chs Ltd. Mumbai Near Mhada Office, Vs. Gandi Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aaaci9120N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Manish Shah/Ms. Miyanta Mehta (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Awungshi Girison (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2019

For Appellant: Manish Shah/Ms. Miyanta Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Girison (DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Infolink Solutions Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of 45/2225, 2nd Floor, Income Tax, Central Circle-09, Samadhan CHS Ltd. Mumbai Near MHADA Office, Vs. Gandi Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 PAN: AAACI9120N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Manish Shah/Ms. Miyanta Mehta (AR) Revenue by : Shri Awungshi Girison (DR) Date of Hearing: 09/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 29/10/2019 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hcl Comnet System & Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal for assessment years 2009-10 is dismissed whereas appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 4808/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Hcl Comnet System & Circle-11(1), Services Ltd., New Delhi 806, Sidharth, 96, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaach3130M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…o opening or closing balance of the investment and thus, according to the working under Rule 8D(2)(iii), disallowance ought to be computed at nil. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied on the following decision: 1. ACB India Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 374 ITR 108 (Del.) 2. Pr. CIT Vs. Caraf Builders & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 1260/2018 (Del.HC) 10.3 On the other hand, learned DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 10.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We agree with the contention of the learned counsel that disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(ii…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hcl Comnet System & Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal for assessment years 2009-10 is dismissed whereas appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 4807/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Hcl Comnet System & Circle-11(1), Services Ltd., New Delhi 806, Sidharth, 96, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaach3130M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…o opening or closing balance of the investment and thus, according to the working under Rule 8D(2)(iii), disallowance ought to be computed at nil. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied on the following decision: 1. ACB India Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 374 ITR 108 (Del.) 2. Pr. CIT Vs. Caraf Builders & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 1260/2018 (Del.HC) 10.3 On the other hand, learned DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 10.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We agree with the contention of the learned counsel that disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(ii…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. India Piston Ltd., Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2384/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2339 & 2340/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12. M/S. India Pistons Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Huzur Gardens, Income Tax, Sembium, Corporate Circle 2(2) Chennai 600 011. Chennai.

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)

…disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule 8D(2) only those investments which yielded exempt income alone to be reckoned with, in this connection he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Limited vs. ACIT, (2015) 374 ITR 108. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. Departmental Representative 11. placed reliance on the orders of lower authorities. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on 12. record, having regard to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the Ltd, 2017-TIOL-923-ITAT-Del-SB, we are of the considered opinion that the average value of inv…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. India Piston Ltd., Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2383/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2339 & 2340/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12. M/S. India Pistons Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Huzur Gardens, Income Tax, Sembium, Corporate Circle 2(2) Chennai 600 011. Chennai.

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)

…disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule 8D(2) only those investments which yielded exempt income alone to be reckoned with, in this connection he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Limited vs. ACIT, (2015) 374 ITR 108. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. Departmental Representative 11. placed reliance on the orders of lower authorities. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on 12. record, having regard to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the Ltd, 2017-TIOL-923-ITAT-Del-SB, we are of the considered opinion that the average value of inv…

ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT

Dharampal Premchand Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Religare Securities Ltd., New Delhi

M/S. Religare Enterprise Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Unipatch Rubber Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Special Range-9, New Delhi

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

Padmini Vna Mechatronics (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd., Coimbatore vs. Addl.CIT, Coimbatore

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Info Edge India Ltd., New Delhi

DCIT Corporate Circle 5(2), Chennai vs. Pdr Investments Pvt Ltd., Chennai

DCIT- CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Hubtown Ltd., Mumbai

Dlf Projects Ltd.(Formerly Known As Dt Projectsd Ltd), Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

Infolink Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 09, Mumbai

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hcl Comnet System & Services Ltd., New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hcl Comnet System & Services Ltd., New Delhi

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. India Piston Ltd., Chennai

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. India Piston Ltd., Chennai