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 366,470 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

Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92D

…ents which actually yielded exempt income during the year should have been taken into consideration as against total investments appearing in the balance sheet for the relevant year. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " ACB India Ltd. Vs ACIT 374 ITR 108 " REI Agro Ltd. Vs DCIT 144 ITD 141 (Kol.) 34. It was contended that the assessee had made the investments in shares of subsidiary company, viz. Exl Support Services Pvt. Ltd., out of commercial expediency, which would accordingly, not fall within the purview of Section 14A of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs…

Brics Gilt Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1157/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.1157/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Brics Gilt Finance Private बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax 1(2) Vs. 4Th Floor, Sadhna House, Room No.537, 570 P.B.Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Behind Mahindra Towers, New Marine Lines, Worli, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400018 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj8885B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. Doshi &For Respondent: Shri M. Rajan
Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई"ायपीठ‘बी’मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“B” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी जी. एस. प"ू, लेखा सद", एवं "ी अमरजीत िसंह, "ाियक सद", के सम" BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.1157/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Brics Gilt Finance Private बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner of Ltd. Income Tax 1(2) Vs. 4th Floor, Sadhna House, Room No.537, 570 P.B.Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Behind Mahindra Towers, New Marine Lines, Worli, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400018 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACJ8885B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" /Respondent) Ass…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Energy Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 797/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 80I

…e above, the disallowance made u/s.14A is restored back to the file of the A.O. for re-computing the disallowance of interest in terms of the above discussions. Further in view of the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT 374 ITR 108, we direct the A.O. to consider only those investment on which dividend is received while computing disallowance u/s.14A. Similar view has been taken by Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. 272 CTR 262 (Guj) and by Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Incl. [2014] 272 CT…

Jsw Energy Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 46, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 390/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 80I

…e above, the disallowance made u/s.14A is restored back to the file of the A.O. for re-computing the disallowance of interest in terms of the above discussions. Further in view of the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT 374 ITR 108, we direct the A.O. to consider only those investment on which dividend is received while computing disallowance u/s.14A. Similar view has been taken by Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. 272 CTR 262 (Guj) and by Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Incl. [2014] 272 CT…

Reliance Ports and Terminals Ltd ( Engineering & Construction Division) (Erstwhile Reliance Engg. Associates P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicate hereinabove

ITA 5151/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma() & Shri Amit Shukla () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri. Satyapal Kumar
Section 115JSection 14Section 143Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…1/Mum/2012) 9. In support of the proposition that only those investments are to be considered for disallowance u/s.14A on which dividend is received during the year, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements.  ACB India Ltd., v Asst. CIT (374 ITR 108 (Del)  Asst. CIT vs. M. Baskaran (ITA No.1717/Mds/2013)  CIT vs. Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd., (272 CTR 262 Guj)  CIT vs. Holcim India (P) Ltd., (272 CTR 282 (Del)  CIT vs. Lakhani Marketing Incl. (272 CTR 265 (P&H) 10. On the other hand Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 11. We have considered rival contentions and carefully go…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 46, Mumbai vs. Jsw Energy Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 981/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 462/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Jsw Energy Limited Acit, Central Circle-46, बिाम/ Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumabi-400 051 Mumbai स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacj 8109 N (Assessee) : (Revenue) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 981/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit, Central Circle-46, Jsw Energy Limited बिाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Mumbai Complex, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumabi-400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacj 8109 N (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi Revenue By : Shri K. Ravi Kiran सुनवाई की तायीख / : 12.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : 07.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order By The Ld. Cit(A) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2007-08. 2

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi Kiran
Section 115JSection 14ASection 80Section 80HSection 80I

…e above, the disallowance made u/s.14A is restored back to the file of the A.O. for re-computing the disallowance of interest in terms of the above discussions. Further in view of the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT 374 ITR 108, we direct the A.O. to consider only those investment on which dividend is received while computing disallowance u/s.14A. 6 ITA Nos. 462 & 981/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2007-08) JSW Energy Limited Similar view has been taken by Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. 272 CTR 262 (Guj) and by Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High…

Jsw Energy Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(5), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 462/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 462/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Jsw Energy Limited Acit, Central Circle-46, बिाम/ Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumabi-400 051 Mumbai स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacj 8109 N (Assessee) : (Revenue) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 981/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit, Central Circle-46, Jsw Energy Limited बिाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Mumbai Complex, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumabi-400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacj 8109 N (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi Revenue By : Shri K. Ravi Kiran सुनवाई की तायीख / : 12.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : 07.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order By The Ld. Cit(A) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2007-08. 2

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi Kiran
Section 115JSection 14ASection 80Section 80HSection 80I

…e above, the disallowance made u/s.14A is restored back to the file of the A.O. for re-computing the disallowance of interest in terms of the above discussions. Further in view of the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT 374 ITR 108, we direct the A.O. to consider only those investment on which dividend is received while computing disallowance u/s.14A. 6 ITA Nos. 462 & 981/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2007-08) JSW Energy Limited Similar view has been taken by Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. 272 CTR 262 (Guj) and by Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 52/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…at the disallowance if at all under clause (iii) of Rule 8D is to be made, then only those investments are to be considered on which, dividend has been received during the year. In support, he relied upon following decisions: ACB India Ltd v ACIT reported in 374 ITR 108 ACIT u M Baskaran.inITA 1717/M/2013(AY 09-10) CIT u Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 262 (Guj) CIT v Holcim India (PJ Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 51/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…at the disallowance if at all under clause (iii) of Rule 8D is to be made, then only those investments are to be considered on which, dividend has been received during the year. In support, he relied upon following decisions: ACB India Ltd v ACIT reported in 374 ITR 108 ACIT u M Baskaran.inITA 1717/M/2013(AY 09-10) CIT u Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 262 (Guj) CIT v Holcim India (PJ Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 50/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…at the disallowance if at all under clause (iii) of Rule 8D is to be made, then only those investments are to be considered on which, dividend has been received during the year. In support, he relied upon following decisions: ACB India Ltd v ACIT reported in 374 ITR 108 ACIT u M Baskaran.inITA 1717/M/2013(AY 09-10) CIT u Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 262 (Guj) CIT v Holcim India (PJ Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 49/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…at the disallowance if at all under clause (iii) of Rule 8D is to be made, then only those investments are to be considered on which, dividend has been received during the year. In support, he relied upon following decisions: ACB India Ltd v ACIT reported in 374 ITR 108 ACIT u M Baskaran.inITA 1717/M/2013(AY 09-10) CIT u Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 262 (Guj) CIT v Holcim India (PJ Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 48/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…at the disallowance if at all under clause (iii) of Rule 8D is to be made, then only those investments are to be considered on which, dividend has been received during the year. In support, he relied upon following decisions: ACB India Ltd v ACIT reported in 374 ITR 108 ACIT u M Baskaran.inITA 1717/M/2013(AY 09-10) CIT u Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 262 (Guj) CIT v Holcim India (PJ Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 47/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…at the disallowance if at all under clause (iii) of Rule 8D is to be made, then only those investments are to be considered on which, dividend has been received during the year. In support, he relied upon following decisions: ACB India Ltd v ACIT reported in 374 ITR 108 ACIT u M Baskaran.inITA 1717/M/2013(AY 09-10) CIT u Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 262 (Guj) CIT v Holcim India (PJ Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 46/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…at the disallowance if at all under clause (iii) of Rule 8D is to be made, then only those investments are to be considered on which, dividend has been received during the year. In support, he relied upon following decisions: ACB India Ltd v ACIT reported in 374 ITR 108 ACIT u M Baskaran.inITA 1717/M/2013(AY 09-10) CIT u Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 262 (Guj) CIT v Holcim India (PJ Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the…

Asst CIT CC 8(4), Mumbai vs. Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 242/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…at the disallowance if at all under clause (iii) of Rule 8D is to be made, then only those investments are to be considered on which, dividend has been received during the year. In support, he relied upon following decisions: ACB India Ltd v ACIT reported in 374 ITR 108 ACIT u M Baskaran.inITA 1717/M/2013(AY 09-10) CIT u Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 262 (Guj) CIT v Holcim India (PJ Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the…

Asst CIT CC 8(4), Mumbai vs. Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 241/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…at the disallowance if at all under clause (iii) of Rule 8D is to be made, then only those investments are to be considered on which, dividend has been received during the year. In support, he relied upon following decisions: ACB India Ltd v ACIT reported in 374 ITR 108 ACIT u M Baskaran.inITA 1717/M/2013(AY 09-10) CIT u Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 262 (Guj) CIT v Holcim India (PJ Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the…

Windia Infrastructure Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5417/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya
Section 14A

…AY. 2009-10 dated 21.01.2015; It was also contended by ld. AR that no disallowance u/s.14A was warranted in respect of investment, which does not earn any exempt income and for this purpose reliance was placed on the following decisions :- i)ACB India v ACIT [374 ITR 108 (Del)] ii)CIT v. Interglobe Enterprises Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (copy enclosed) M/s Slyvex Cable Co. Pvt. Ltd. v Dy.CIT being ITA No: 8581/Mum/2011 for AY. 2008-09 dated 24.02.2016 4. We have considered rival contentions and found from the record that while computing disallowance under rule 8D(iii), the AO has not excluded investment in shares he…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sil Investments Ltd., Rajasthan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6046/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2016AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…y the assessee during the relevant assessment year. He further submitted that in assessment year 2012-13, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) following the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd Vs. ACIT reported in 347 ITR 108 restricted the disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii) restricted at the rate of 0.5% of the average investment, which actually resulted in exempt dividend income. Accordingly, in the year under consideration, also disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii) cannot be made more than the 0.5% of average investment, which actually resulted in exempt dividend income.…

Sil Investments Ltd., Rajasthan vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5656/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2016AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…y the assessee during the relevant assessment year. He further submitted that in assessment year 2012-13, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) following the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd Vs. ACIT reported in 347 ITR 108 restricted the disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii) restricted at the rate of 0.5% of the average investment, which actually resulted in exempt dividend income. Accordingly, in the year under consideration, also disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii) cannot be made more than the 0.5% of average investment, which actually resulted in exempt dividend income.…

Tata Investment Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

ITA 1398/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/1398/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Tata Investment Corporation Ltd. Acit-2(3) Elphinstone Building, 2Nd Floor Room No.552, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 10, Veer Nariman Road,Mumbai-1. M.K. Road,Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaact 4120 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri Kailash Gaikwad-Dr Assessee By: S/Shri M.M. Golvala & Amey Wagle सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 26.12.2012 Of The Cit (A)-6,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee An Investment Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 26.09.2009,Showing Income Of Rs.28.91Crores Under The Normal Provision & Book Profit Of Rs.148.70 Crores U/S.115Jb Of The Act.The Assessing Officer (Ao),Completed The Assessment,U/S.143(3)Of The Act,On 29. 07.2011,Determining The Its Income At Rs.32.25 Crores & At Rs.149.22Crores Under The Mat Provisions.The Assessee Has Filed An Application To Admit Additional Grounds & Has Stated That The Grounds Raised Through The Application Were Legal In Nature.Considering The Fact That Same Deal With Legal Issues,We Allow The Assessee To Argue Them.

For Appellant: S/Shri M.M. Golvala and Amey WagleFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad-DR
Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी. एन एन. "साद "साद,"याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी एन एन "साद "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/1398/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Tata Investment Corporation Ltd. ACIT-2(3) Elphinstone Building, 2nd Floor Room No.552, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 10, Veer Na…