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

DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata vs. M/S the Diamond Company Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 326/KOL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

Section 111ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)

…et, we find the investments which are not capable of yielding the dividend income needs to be excluded and accordingly several courts have decided this issue in favour of assessee. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of ACB Iindia Ltd. vs. ACIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del) has decided the issue in favour of assessee. “Income—Expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income—Disallowance— Validity—Assessee reported a tax exempt income—AO made addition u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D by taking into consideration total quantum of interest other than that invested u/s 14A in terms of Rule 8D and arrived at the said figure a…

M/S. Hotz Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (OSD), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 876/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Ramka, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI L.P. SAHU Assessment Year: 2008-09 Hotz Industries Ltd., vs. DCIT(OSD), 32-Hanuman Road, CIT-IV, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN: AAACH0092G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Shailesh Gupta, FCA Department by: Shri Rajeev Ramka, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 03 .02.2016 Date of pronouncement: 29 :04.2016 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee has questioned first appellate order on the following grounds: 1. That the Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholdi…

M/S Amrit Diamond Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 5(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2642/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri, Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: - 2009-10

Section 14Section 14A

…year but should be worked out by considering only those investments which yielded dividend during the year. The assessee placed Page 4 of 9 5 Assessment year: - 2009-10 reliance on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd Vs ACIT (2015)62 Taxmann.com 71 (Delhi) 7. The ld. DR on the other hand relied on the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on records. We find that the AO made the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) @1/2% of the average investments taking into account all the investments at the beginning and at close of the year which w…

S. Krishnmurthy, Mumbai vs. ACIT 11(Hq), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6207/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No 6207/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No 6207/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) S. Krishnamurthy, ACIT 11 (HQ) 301, Swastik Chambers, 3rd Flr, बनाम/ Mumbai. CST RD, Chembur, Vs. Mumbai-400 071. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AABPS 4021L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : : Shri Haresh P. Shah अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri J. Saravanan ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17/12/2015 Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 15/01/2016 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R…