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 367,154 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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2340/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…

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2339/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…

Ttk Healthcare Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3271/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3270 & 3271/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/S. Ttk Healthcare Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No.6, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Gopalapuram, Corporate Circle 3(1) Chennai 600 086. Chennai. [Pan Aabct 3312J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(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 "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3270 & 3271/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/s. TTK Healthcare Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of No.6, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Gopalapuram, Corporate Circle 3(1) Chennai 600 086. Chennai. [PAN AABCT 3312J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. R.…

Ttk Healthcare Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3270/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3270 & 3271/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/S. Ttk Healthcare Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No.6, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Gopalapuram, Corporate Circle 3(1) Chennai 600 086. Chennai. [Pan Aabct 3312J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(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 "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3270 & 3271/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/s. TTK Healthcare Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of No.6, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Gopalapuram, Corporate Circle 3(1) Chennai 600 086. Chennai. [PAN AABCT 3312J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. R.…

Avinash Nivruti Bhosale, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1239/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1239/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Avinash Nivruti Bhosale, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, 2, Abil House, Pune Range Hill Corner, Ganesh Khind Road, Pune 411 007 Pan : Abtpb8151F Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…which have yielded exempt income. 5. Ordinarily the disallowance is made at 0.5% of the average value of investments under rule 8D(2)(iii). However, in this regard, it is relevant to note that 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)…

Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 301/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charymahagun India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, C/O. Prakash K. Prakash, B-1, Central Circle-13, Sagar Apartments, 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacm6572A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, SR. DR
Section 10Section 14Section 143

…ect to the disallowance of expenditure at the rate of 0.5% assessee has received dividend only on the investment of INR 800,000 from the company. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ITA number 615/2014 in case of ACB India Ltd vs Asst Commissioner of income tax [ 374 ITR 108] for assessment year 2008 – 09 dated 24/3/2015 has held that the value of investment for working out average value of investment, only those investments are required to be taken from which the assessee has earned exempt income during the year. In the present case the assessee has earned exempt income only from the investment of INR 800,000 which…

M/S Minda Investment Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are, accordingly, allowed

ITA 510/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shrik.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRIK.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.510& 511/Del/2017 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 M/s Minda Investments Limited, vs DCIT, Circle 16(2), B-64/1, Wazirpur Industrial Area, New Delhi. Delhi. PAN: AAACL1433F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CA Department by: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing: 19.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 03.09.2019 ORDER PER NARASIMHA K. CHARY, JM Challenging the orders for the Asstt. Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 both dated 29.11.2…

Kalyani Steels Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 904/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.904/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Kalyani Steels Ltd., Mundhwa, Pune-411036. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack7315D बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-14. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri Vishwas Mundhe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-7, Pune Dated 11.11.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. During The Proceedings Before Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Filed An Additional Ground & Submitted That If The Said Additional Ground Is Allowed In Favour Of The Assessee, The Adjudication Of Other Regular Grounds Becomes Academic Exercise Only. Accordingly, The Said Additional Ground Filed By The Assessee Is Extracted As Under :- “1] The Assessee Submits That The Investments On Which No Tax Free Income Has Been Earned During The Year Should Be Excluded For The Purposes Of Computing The Disallowance U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D(Iii).”

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…average value of investments, which have yielded exempt income during the year. The assessee will be allowed hearing opportunity in fresh proceedings.” 9. From the above, it is evident that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs. CIT, 374 ITR 108 (Del) and the Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd., 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB) have given a categorical finding for computing the average investments only to the exempt income yielded investments should be considered. Therefore, following the parity of reasoning, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) to the exte…

Deputy Commssioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Igate Global Solutions Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 342/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Section 115JSection 195(2)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…licable from the assessment year under consideration, the disallowance has to be made and sustained in accordance with the prescription of such rule only. 39. Here we would like to clarify that 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…

Sri Kssv Finvest Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1591/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Kssv Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaack9655Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Raghavendra RaoFor Respondent: Smt. V. Aparna
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…al Power Co., Limited Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC), we admit the said additional grounds of assessee. 8. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee advanced his arguments only on additional grounds. He relied on the following cases: 1. ACB India Ltd. Vs. ACIT, [2015] 374 ITR 108 (Del.) 2. Yashoda Health Care Services P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2017] 54 ITR (Trib) 26 (ITAT, Hyd) 3. Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs. CIT, [2017] 86 Taxmann.com 49 (Del.) 4. M/s Skanda Aerospace Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITA No. 661/Hyd/2017, order dated 30/08/2017. 9. The ld. DR besides relying on the orders of revenue authorities, relied on the following case law: 1…

Sh. Vijay Sachdev, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal bearing is dismissed whereas

ITA 5343/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.6535/Del/2015 & 5343/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Vijay Sachdev, Vs. Joint Commissioner of C/o- M/s. RRA TAXINDIA, Income Tax, D-28, South Extension, Part- Range-32, New Delhi I, New Delhi PAN : AANPS6109F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Respondent by Shri N.K. Bansal , Sr. DR Date of hearing 08.07.2019 Date of pronouncement 12.07.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These two appeals filed by the ass…

Sh. Vijay Sachdev, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal bearing is dismissed whereas

ITA 6535/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.6535/Del/2015 & 5343/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Vijay Sachdev, Vs. Joint Commissioner of C/o- M/s. RRA TAXINDIA, Income Tax, D-28, South Extension, Part- Range-32, New Delhi I, New Delhi PAN : AANPS6109F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Respondent by Shri N.K. Bansal , Sr. DR Date of hearing 08.07.2019 Date of pronouncement 12.07.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These two appeals filed by the ass…

Essar Ports Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4444/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhessar Ports Ltd. Acit-6(2)(2), Essar House, 11, Keshavrao Room No. 563 (C), Vs. Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400034. M.K. Road, Pan: Aaace8391D Mumbai-400020 Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj Kisnadwala Ar’S Respondent By : Shri Mukundraj Chate Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Mukundraj Chate DR
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Essar Ports Ltd. ACIT-6(2)(2), Essar House, 11, Keshavrao Room No. 563 (c), Vs. Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400034. M.K. Road, PAN: AAACE8391D Mumbai-400020 Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj Kisnadwala AR’s Respondent by : Shri Mukundraj Chate DR Date of Hearing : 18.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 26.06.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is direc…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2749/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel
Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…see and; • lastly, no dividend was earned by the assessee on investments in unquoted share of the private limited companies. 8. He further strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in (2015) 374 ITR 108, wherein it has been upheld that while calculating the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) Assessing Officer has to adopt average value of the investment the income from which does not form part of the total income and disallowance can only be computed in respect to investment which has yielded exempt income during the year. The assessee has earned…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2126/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel
Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…see and; • lastly, no dividend was earned by the assessee on investments in unquoted share of the private limited companies. 8. He further strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in (2015) 374 ITR 108, wherein it has been upheld that while calculating the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) Assessing Officer has to adopt average value of the investment the income from which does not form part of the total income and disallowance can only be computed in respect to investment which has yielded exempt income during the year. The assessee has earned…

Phulchand Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 3184/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Neil Phillip
Section 14A

…38,900, during the year amounted to ` 5,39,000, only. Therefore, disallowance under Rule–8D(2)(iii) has to be computed on the investment of ` 5,39,000. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) ACB India Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2015] 374 ITR 108 (Del.); ii) Cheminvest Ltd. v/s CIT 2015, 378 ITR 33 (Del.); and iii) CIT v/s Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., 165 ITD (SB) 27 (Del.). 7. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, learned Authorised Representative submitted, under no circumstances, the disallowance under section 14A of the Act can exceed exempt income earned during the year. F…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

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

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…has erred in application of Rule 8D of the Rules, with regard to calculation of the average value of investment prescribed in the formulae. In this regard, the Assessee places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ACB India Ltd vs. ACIT [374 ITR 108 (Delhi)] and in the case of PCIT v. M/s Caraf Builders & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 1260 of 2018]. Delhi ITAT Special Bench decision in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. [[2017] 165 IT 27 (SB)] has taken the same view. 79. It was argued that the assessee made disallowance of Rs.2,65,715/- in the return. The assessee arrived a…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3883/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT DR
Section 142Section 147Section 153Section 153ASection 201(1)Section 36Section 40Section 40A(3)

…dingly assessing officer is not justified in applying formula prescribed in Rule 8D to entire value of investment. legal position to this effect is well settled and reference may be made to decision of Delhi High Court in case of ACB India Ltd vs. ACIT [2015] 374 ITR 108 (Delhi High Court) in which it was held as under : ―S. 14A & Rule 8D(2)(iii): In computing ―average value of investment‖, only investments yielding non-taxable income have to be considered and not all investments.‖ 31. Above said decision has been followed and applied by Hon‘ble Delhi Tribunal in case of DCIT v. DLF Commercial Developers Ltd. (IT…

Yuvak Ventrures Private Limited (Successors to Aikone Marketing and Management Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 8(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 144/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Yuvak Ventures Pvt. Ltd., (As Successors To Aikone Marketing & Management Services Pvt. Ltd.,) 405/408, B ……………. Appellant Wing, Navbharat Estate Zakaria Bunder Road Sewree, Mumbai – 400 015 Pan No:Aagca6159B V/S

For Appellant: Shri. Yogesh. A.Thar &For Respondent: Shri. B.B.Rajendra Prasad &
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…v. ACIT (ITA No. S63/M/201 3) (Mum.)  Dena Bank v. DCIT (ITA No. 3676 & 4 II 3/M/201 2) Proposition : Only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year should be considered while computing disallowance u/s I4A  ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT (374 ITR 108) (Del.)  ACIT v Vireet Investments (P ) Ltd (82 taxmann.com 415) (Del. T rib.) (SB)  M/s. Toshvm Analytical Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 3089/Mum/20l3)(Mum) 10 14. Per contra, the ld. Departmental representative relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India and opposed that admission of this ground which is otherwise…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Gahoi Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2710/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, DR
Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

…of calculating the average of the total assets, because, admittedly no exempt income has been derived by the assessee from these shares and in support, he relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT, reported in (2015) 374 ITR 108. Further, in so far as investments in mutual funds are concerned, he said that some reasonable basis can be applied. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the AO. 19. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned orders. In so far as first contention of the Ld. Counsel is co…