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

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

ITA 2703/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

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…

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

ITA 2702/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

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…

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Garware Polyster Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5757/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhandcit-9(3)(2) M/S Garware Polyster Ltd. 418, 4Th Floor, Garware House, Western Express Aayakar Bhavan, Highway, Vile Parle(East), M.K. Road, Mumbai-400057. Vs. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacg0571D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad (Cit-Dr) Respondent By : Shri Apurv Gandhi (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad (CIT-DR)For Respondent: Shri Apurv Gandhi (AR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…he Act only those investments are to be considered form which exempt income has been received during the year for this purpose reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncement: 1. ACIT Vs. Vireet investment [165 ITD 25 (Del) (SB)] 2. ACB India Vs. ACIT [374 ITR 108 (Del)] 3. CIT vs. Interglobe Enterprises Ltd. (Delhi High Court) 4. M/s. Slyvex cable Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT being ITA No. 8581/Mum/2011 for A. Y 2008-09 dated 24.02.2016. 5. Syntex Corp Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO being ITA No. 2994/Mum/2012 dated 21.06.2018. 21. In the A.Y 2009-10, we find that assessee was having own funds of Rs. 23,758.60 lakhs against wh…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Integrated Coal Mining Limited, Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 170/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), V/S. M/S Integrated Coal P-7, Chowringhee Mining Ltd., 6, Church Square, Kolkata-69 Lane, 1Ste Floor, Kolakta-700001 [Pan No.Aaaci 5584 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Diparun Mukherjee, Aca & ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Alolk Goenka, Aca 15-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2010-11 DCIT, Circle-6(1), V/s. M/s Integrated Coal P-7, Chowringhee Mining Ltd., 6, Church Square, Kolkata-69 Lane, 1ste Floor, Kolakta-700001 [PAN No.AAACI 5584 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Dr. P.K. Srihari, CIT-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Diparun Mukherjee, ACA & ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Alolk Goenka, ACA 15-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of…

The Dy. CIT, Circle-3, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Goldmine Stocks Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 610/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T, M/S Goldmine Stocks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3, Room No.109, 4, Niranjan Nirakar Society, Vs. ‘B’ Wing, 1St Floor, Shreyas Railways Crossing, Pratyakshyakar Bhawan, Paldi, Panjrapole, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380005. Ahmedabad Pan: Aaacg5445N

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 14ASection 28Section 28(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’A’’BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.610/AHD/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T, M/s Goldmine Stocks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3, Room No.109, 4, Niranjan Nirakar Society, Vs. ‘B’ Wing, 1st floor, Shreyas Railways Crossing, Pratyakshyakar Bhawan, Paldi, Panjrapole, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380005. Ahmedabad PAN: AAACG5445N (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. D.R Assessee by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing…

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

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

ITA 1549/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2001-02 Religare Enterprises Ltd., Vs Dcit, Circle 15(1), Gys Global, 7Th Floor, New Delhi. A-3,4,5 Plot No.11, Sector 125. Noida. Pan: Aaacv5888N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rohit Jain , Advocate Mstejasvi Jain, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.01.2019 Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain , AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…lt to agree with the assessee in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. vs CIT, 91 taxmann.com 154. 7. Coming to the statement of the learned AR that 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 Calcutta High Court in ITAT No.220 of 2013 while calculating the average investment under Rule 8D(2)(ii)(iii), only those investments which have actually yielded dividend income during the relevant year should be considered, we are conv…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ptc India Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6502/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiptc India Ltd, Vs. Acit, 2Nd Floor, Nbcc Tower, Circle-14(1), 15, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcp7947F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 14(2)Section 14ASection 271(1)

…nt, there is certain reference to the records of the company; however no such records were mentioned as to what was examined and how it was examined by the Chartered Accountant for working out the disallowance. It is also true that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 374 ITR 108 has held that while working disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D, only those investment which has resulted into exempt income during the year are required to be considered. With respect to ground No. 1 of the appeal, respectfully the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it is further held that only those investments which has earned exempt…

Kohinoor Developments Corporation, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2137/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

Section 14A

…has been computed by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(iii), being, 1/2 percent of the average of the value of investments. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court 4 Kohinoor Developments Corporation in ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del), has held that 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. The effect of this decision is that while making disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), it is only the average of those investments which have yielded exe…

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 7, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 6582/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…investment which has not yielded any exempt income. In so far as second contention raised by the learned counsel is concern, we find that the same finds support from the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India vs. CIT, reported in (2015) 374 ITR 108, wherein it has been held that instead of taking into account total investment attributable to dividend was required to be adopted and thereafter, disallowance has to be arrived. Same view has been taken by the Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. in (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del. Tri.) (SB). Accordingly, we hold that Assess…

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4518/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…investment which has not yielded any exempt income. In so far as second contention raised by the learned counsel is concern, we find that the same finds support from the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India vs. CIT, reported in (2015) 374 ITR 108, wherein it has been held that instead of taking into account total investment attributable to dividend was required to be adopted and thereafter, disallowance has to be arrived. Same view has been taken by the Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. in (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del. Tri.) (SB). Accordingly, we hold that Assess…

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4517/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…investment which has not yielded any exempt income. In so far as second contention raised by the learned counsel is concern, we find that the same finds support from the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India vs. CIT, reported in (2015) 374 ITR 108, wherein it has been held that instead of taking into account total investment attributable to dividend was required to be adopted and thereafter, disallowance has to be arrived. Same view has been taken by the Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. in (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del. Tri.) (SB). Accordingly, we hold that Assess…

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4516/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…investment which has not yielded any exempt income. In so far as second contention raised by the learned counsel is concern, we find that the same finds support from the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India vs. CIT, reported in (2015) 374 ITR 108, wherein it has been held that instead of taking into account total investment attributable to dividend was required to be adopted and thereafter, disallowance has to be arrived. Same view has been taken by the Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. in (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del. Tri.) (SB). Accordingly, we hold that Assess…

M/S. Pepsi Foods Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1044/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…investment which has not yielded any exempt income. In so far as second contention raised by the learned counsel is concern, we find that the same finds support from the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India vs. CIT, reported in (2015) 374 ITR 108, wherein it has been held that instead of taking into account total investment attributable to dividend was required to be adopted and thereafter, disallowance has to be arrived. Same view has been taken by the Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. in (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del. Tri.) (SB). Accordingly, we hold that Assess…

Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2511/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…investment which has not yielded any exempt income. In so far as second contention raised by the learned counsel is concern, we find that the same finds support from the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India vs. CIT, reported in (2015) 374 ITR 108, wherein it has been held that instead of taking into account total investment attributable to dividend was required to be adopted and thereafter, disallowance has to be arrived. Same view has been taken by the Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. in (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del. Tri.) (SB). Accordingly, we hold that Assess…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) -2 vs. M/S. Acb India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1257/2018HC Delhi27 Nov 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 14ASection 260A

…5. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has upheld the first appellate order relying on the Delhi High Court decision in the case of the respondent-assessee for the Assessment year 2008-09 reported as ACB India Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Delhi). 6. In the aforesaid factual background, we are not inclined to issue notice in the appeals for the assessment year 2011-12. They are dismissed without any order as to costs. ITA Nos.1254/2018,1256/2018.1258/2018 and 1259/2018: 7. Facts in respect of the Assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14 are different and reasoning given by the Inco…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) -2 vs. M/S. Acb India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1255/2018HC Delhi27 Nov 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 14ASection 260A

…5. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has upheld the first appellate order relying on the Delhi High Court decision in the case of the respondent-assessee for the Assessment year 2008-09 reported as ACB India Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Delhi). 6. In the aforesaid factual background, we are not inclined to issue notice in the appeals for the assessment year 2011-12. They are dismissed without any order as to costs. ITA Nos.1254/2018,1256/2018.1258/2018 and 1259/2018: 7. Facts in respect of the Assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14 are different and reasoning given by the Inco…

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. D.D. Cotton P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue as well as the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2922/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Acit-3(1)(1), M/S D.D. Cotton Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 607, Aayakar Bhavan, 903, Tulsiyani Chamber, Mumbai - 400020 212 Backway Reclamation Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacd4819K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 258/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2922/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S D.D. Cotton Pvt. Ltd., The Acit-3(1)(1), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Associates Room No. 601, Aayakar Bhavan, Llp, Chartered Accountants, Mumbai - 400020 12 Engineering Building, Vs. 265 Princes Street, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacd4819K (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri E. Sridhar (Cit Dr) Assessee By : Shri S.L. Jain (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 19/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2018

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain (AR)For Respondent: Shri E. Sridhar (CIT DR)
Section 143Section 14ASection 43Section 73

…made where the own funds of the assessee are more than the investments made during the relevant year. In respect of disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii), the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ABC India Ltd. vs. ACIT, 374 ITR 108 and Cheminvestment Ltd. vs. CIT ,378 ITR 33 and contended that only investments on which exempt income earned should be considered for arriving at average investments under the said rule. As regards mutual funds not yielding dividend income, the assessee relied on the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of Manugraph India Ltd. vs. DCIT I…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…al filed by the Revenue against the aforesaid decision has been dismissed by the Calcutta High Court as not giving rise to any substantial question of law in appeal No. GA No.3581 of 2013. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Limited v. ACIT: 374 ITR 108, similarly held that only investment which actually resulted in exempt dividend income has to be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance as per Rule 8D of the Rules. In view of the aforesaid, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessing officer erred in considering the entire investments while computing disallowance u/s 14A read with…

Cedar Infonet Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6080/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

…x & Another, (2017) 295 CTR 121 (SC); b) CIT Vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd., (2015) 378 ITR 240 (Del.); c) Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Others. Vs. CIT, (2012) 247 CTR 0162 (Del.); d) ACB India Ltd. {Formerly MS Aryal Col Benefications (P) Ltd.}, (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del); and e) Amway India Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, (2014) 91 CCH 4 (Del.); 4.9 The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) with reference to investment in group companies, he submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment (supra) disallowance…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. H T Media Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3532/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms Suchitra Kambledcit Vs H. T. Media Ltd. Circle-12(1) Hindustan Times House, New Delhi 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi (Appellant) Marg New Delhi Aabch3165P (Respondent) Dcit Vs H. T. Media Ltd. Circle-12(1) Hindustan Times House, New Delhi 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi (Appellant) Marg New Delhi Aabch3165P (Respondent) H. T. Media Ltd. Vs Dcit Hindustan Times House, Circle-12101) 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi New Delhi (Respondent) Aabch3165P (Appellant) Dcit Vs H. T. Media Ltd. Circle-12101) Hindustan Times House, New Delhi 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi (Appellant) Marg New Delhi Aabch3165P (Respondent) Vs Acit Hindustan Times House, Circle-12101) 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi New Delhi (Respondent) Aabch3165P (Appellant)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

…es (38.50 + 228.50 = 267 ÷ 2) , the details are given on page 4 of the order of the CIT(A). On this basis the disallowance works out to Rs.66.75 lacs. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del) and recent decision of the Tribunal in the case of Federal Mogul Goetze India Ltd. v. DCIT decided on 27.06.2018. 22. As regards appeal of Department, relating to Ground No. 1 for disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D on account of interest and administrative expenses, the Ld. AR submitted a statement giving figures of investments, owned f…