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

M/S. Vaibhav Credit & Portfolio Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Circle 3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2085/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S. Vaibhav Credit & Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Central Circle 3(1) Office No. 20, 10 Th Floor, 19Th Floor, Air India Bldg, Navjivan Commercial Nariman Point, Mumbai- Vs. Premises Co.Op. Society, 400 021 Lamington Road, Mumbai- 400 008 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv9221D Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Ujjawal Chavan Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ujjawal Chavan SR AR
Section 132Section 14Section 143Section 14ASection 234BSection 270A(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM M/s. Vaibhav Credit & Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. DCIT Central Circle 3(1) Office No. 20, 10 th Floor, 19th Floor, Air India Bldg, Navjivan Commercial Nariman Point, Mumbai- Vs. Premises Co.Op. Society, 400 021 Lamington Road, Mumbai- 400 008 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No.AAACV9221D Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri. Ujjawal Chavan SR AR Date of hearing: 20.09.2022 Date of pronouncement : 31.10.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the Com…

ACIT, Ltu, Circle-1, New Delhi vs. Jindal Poly Films Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 7511/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 14Section 14ASection 250(6)

…unt of Rs.4,83,36,424/- in the income of the Assessee. 4. The Assessee being aggrieved also challenged the said addition before the ld. Commissioner, who while relying upon the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT, 374 ITR 108, which was followed by Hon’ble High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Caraf Builders & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 261 Taxman 47, wherein the Hon’ble High Court laid down the principle to the effects “ only those investments which have actually yielded exempt income during the relevant year should be considered for the purpose of computing disallowan…

Jindal Poly Films Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Ltu, Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 7464/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 14Section 14ASection 250(6)

…unt of Rs.4,83,36,424/- in the income of the Assessee. 4. The Assessee being aggrieved also challenged the said addition before the ld. Commissioner, who while relying upon the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT, 374 ITR 108, which was followed by Hon’ble High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Caraf Builders & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 261 Taxman 47, wherein the Hon’ble High Court laid down the principle to the effects “ only those investments which have actually yielded exempt income during the relevant year should be considered for the purpose of computing disallowan…

Jaypee Development Corporation Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3966/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.D.R
Section 14A

…s 14A at Rs. 42,81,109/- as computed and claimed by the assessee during appellate proceedings on correct application of Rule 8D(iii) based on binding decisions of jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of ACB India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT reported in [2015] 374 ITR 108 (Delhi)as per which investments on which no exempt income is received are not to be considered while computing average investments. 3. That without prejudice to the Ground No. 3 above, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the claim of the assessee that Rule 8D is not mandatory and the disallowance u/s 14A computed by the assessee cannot be re…

DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jaypee Development Corporation Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3480/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.D.R
Section 14A

…s 14A at Rs. 42,81,109/- as computed and claimed by the assessee during appellate proceedings on correct application of Rule 8D(iii) based on binding decisions of jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of ACB India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT reported in [2015] 374 ITR 108 (Delhi)as per which investments on which no exempt income is received are not to be considered while computing average investments. 3. That without prejudice to the Ground No. 3 above, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the claim of the assessee that Rule 8D is not mandatory and the disallowance u/s 14A computed by the assessee cannot be re…

Shri Vijaykumar Devichand Nibjiya, Pune vs. Assistnt Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-5, Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 106/PUN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Aug 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri K. Srinivasan (virtual)For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…f the I.T. Rules without even making it clear as to whether the same relates to exempt income yielding investment only or not. Faced with this situation, I quote Asstt. CIT Vs. Vireet Investments (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Delhi- SB) and ACB India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 374 ITR 108 (Del) to restore the ITA 106/PUN/2022 Vijay D. Nibjya A.Y. 2016-16 instant computation issue back to the Assessing Officer in very terms as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly. 6. This assessee‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. . Order pronounced in the open Court on this 17th A…

Alcom Investment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -1, Aurangabad

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 571/PUN/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ond argument back to the Assessing Officer to be adjudicated afresh as per law. Ordered accordingly. 5. Next comes administrative expenses disallowance component. The assessee’s sole plea during the course of hearing in light of ACB India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 and ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. (2017) 106 ITD 27 (Del) (SB) is that only exempt income yielding investments have to be considered. Mr. Jasnani fails to dispute that the foregoing settled legal proposition has nowhere been considered in the learned lower authorities’ respective orders. Faced with this situation, I restore the instant adm…

Amj Land Holdings Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 10, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 228/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.228/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Amj Land Holdings Limited (Formerly Known As Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd.) Thergaon, Pune – 411033 Pan: Aabcp0310Q .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 10, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 14A

…tment which yielded exempt income alone has to be considered for the purpose of arriving at average value of investment. On the similar lines, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 374 ITR 108 and the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Marg Ltd. Vs. CIT, 318 CTR (Mad.) 148 and followed subsequently by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT 3 AMJ Land Holdings Limited Vs. Shriram Ownership Trust 318 CTR (Mad.) 233 and also by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank Vs. Jt. CIT, 95 T…

Poonawalla Shares & Securities Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Circle-4, Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 380/PUN/2020[2016/17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…hares & Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Pune (A) those yielding exempt income in the relevant previous year. Faced with the situation, we quote ACIT vs. Vineet Investment Private Ltd., (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del ) (SB) and ACB India Ltd. Vs. CIT [2014] 374 ITR 108 (Del) to direct the Assessing Officer to re- compute this last component of administrative expenses afresh as per law in very terms. Ordered accordingly. This former substantive grounds is partly accepted. 6. Next comes the latter issue of correctness of disallowance of Long Term Capital Loss amount of Rs.3,20,25,607/- on sale of listed shares.…

Finolex Industries Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -1 (2), Pune

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

ITA 561/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 14A

…aced on record order dated 10-11-2021 for A.Y. 2012-13 in assessee’s own case. 4. After hearing both the parties, we note that this Tribunal on similar issue on same identical facts by placing reliance in the case of ACB India Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del.) directed the AO for computation of disallowance under Rule 8D by considering only such investments which yielded exempt income. Therefore, following the same, the issue is remanded to the file of AO for its consideration for computation of disallowance of those investments which yielded income. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are…

Aurangabad Electricals Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

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

ITA 225/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.199/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. M/S. Aurangabad Electricals Limited, B-7, Midc Chakan, Tal Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aacca2867L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 14A

…tment which yielded exempt income alone has to be considered for the purpose of arriving at average value of investment, on the similar lines, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 374 ITR 108 and the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Marg Ltd. Vs. CIT, 318 CTR (Mad.) 148 and followed subsequently by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shriram Ownership Trust 318 CTR (Mad.) 233 and also by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank Vs. Jt. CIT, 95 Taxman.com 41 (Kar.). 9. In li…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. M/S. Aurangabad Electricals Limited, Pune

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

ITA 199/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.199/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. M/S. Aurangabad Electricals Limited, B-7, Midc Chakan, Tal Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aacca2867L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 14A

…tment which yielded exempt income alone has to be considered for the purpose of arriving at average value of investment, on the similar lines, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 374 ITR 108 and the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Marg Ltd. Vs. CIT, 318 CTR (Mad.) 148 and followed subsequently by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shriram Ownership Trust 318 CTR (Mad.) 233 and also by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank Vs. Jt. CIT, 95 Taxman.com 41 (Kar.). 9. In li…

M/S. Ferrocare International, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 14(3), Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1247/PUN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ferrocare International Vs. Ito, Ward S.No.32/3/8, Yewalewadi Road, 14(3), Pune Kondhwa Budruk, Pune – 411048 Pan: Aaaff5100C Appellant Respondent

Section 114Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 14A(2)

…learned lower authorities have considered assessee‟s entire investments than only those yielding actual exempt income in the relevant previous year for the purpose of computing its administrative expenditure in issue. He quotes ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT (2014) 374 ITR 108 (Del) and Vinit Investments (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del)(SB) deciding the very issue in assessee‟s favour and against the department in very terms. Faced with this situation, we reject the Revenue‟s vehement arguments to this limited extent and direct the learned Assessing Officer to re-compute the impugned disallowance of administrative expenses afte…

Poonawalla Shares and Securities Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1380/PUN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 14A

…er satisfaction by the AO before making the disallowance etc. were not pressed. Such other grounds, ergo, stand dismissed. 5. Now coming to the issue pressed before the Tribunal, it is seen 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 3 Poonawalla Shares & Securities Pvt. Ltd., by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet…

Kolte Patil Developers Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Pune

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpsoes in above terms

ITA 646/PUN/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…authorities’ orders. 4. We have given thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival submissions and find force in assessee’s stand. The Case-law in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2015) 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB) and ACB India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del) has already decided the instant issue that as assesses investments yielding exempt only have to be taken into consideration whilst computing sec. 14A r.w.rule 8D. We thus uphold the impugned disallowance in principle and leave it open for the Assessing Officer to recompute the same as per law in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingl…

Kolte Patil Developers Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle 1(1), Pune

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpsoes in above terms

ITA 645/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…authorities’ orders. 4. We have given thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival submissions and find force in assessee’s stand. The Case-law in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2015) 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB) and ACB India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del) has already decided the instant issue that as assesses investments yielding exempt only have to be taken into consideration whilst computing sec. 14A r.w.rule 8D. We thus uphold the impugned disallowance in principle and leave it open for the Assessing Officer to recompute the same as per law in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingl…

Kolte Patil Developers Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Pune

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpsoes in above terms

ITA 644/PUN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…authorities’ orders. 4. We have given thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival submissions and find force in assessee’s stand. The Case-law in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2015) 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB) and ACB India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del) has already decided the instant issue that as assesses investments yielding exempt only have to be taken into consideration whilst computing sec. 14A r.w.rule 8D. We thus uphold the impugned disallowance in principle and leave it open for the Assessing Officer to recompute the same as per law in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingl…

Kolte Patil Developers Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle 1(1), Pune

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpsoes in above terms

ITA 643/PUN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…authorities’ orders. 4. We have given thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival submissions and find force in assessee’s stand. The Case-law in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2015) 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB) and ACB India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del) has already decided the instant issue that as assesses investments yielding exempt only have to be taken into consideration whilst computing sec. 14A r.w.rule 8D. We thus uphold the impugned disallowance in principle and leave it open for the Assessing Officer to recompute the same as per law in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingl…

Bharat Forge Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1 (1), Pune

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 354/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…eration assessee’s entire investments than only those yielding exempt income(s) in the corresponding assessment year. He quotes Special Bench Order in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB) and ACB India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del) in assessee’s favour. 4. The Revenue has placed strong reliance on the lower authorities’ action making this impugned disallowance. 5. We have given thoughtful consideration to the foregoing contentions and find merit in asssessee’s arguments. We note with able assistance coming from both the parties that not only foregoing case-law suppo…

Bharat Forge Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1 (1), Pune

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 353/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…eration assessee’s entire investments than only those yielding exempt income(s) in the corresponding assessment year. He quotes Special Bench Order in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB) and ACB India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del) in assessee’s favour. 4. The Revenue has placed strong reliance on the lower authorities’ action making this impugned disallowance. 5. We have given thoughtful consideration to the foregoing contentions and find merit in asssessee’s arguments. We note with able assistance coming from both the parties that not only foregoing case-law suppo…