ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.

165 ITD 27Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2017#54 most cited

What is ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

No disallowance under section 14A can be made while computing book profits under section 115JB unless the expenditure is debited to the profit and loss account and satisfies clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2).

882

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. · Section 14A disallowance · Section 115JB book profits · MAT computation · expenditure for exempt income · Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2)(f) · debit to profit and loss account · Vireet Investment Special Bench

Also reported as

58 ITR (Trib) 313

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 115JBSection 143(3)Section 1961Section 8DSection 37(1)Section 250Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 115jb(2)section 14a(2)strategic investmentbook profitscorporate guaranteesection 115jdisallowance under section 14adisallowance of interest expendituresection 115jbdisallowance u/s 14asection 92bsection 14a

Judgments citing ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. EXPORT IMPORT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

ITA 9469/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 9469/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3(1)(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 V/S Export Import Bank Of India, Centre One Building, Floor 21, World Trade Centre Complex, ……………… Respondent Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005 Pan : Aaace2769D

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…, we do not find any merit in the findings of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. 11. Be that as it may, we find that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del-Trib.), held that only those investments are to be considered for computing the average value of investments which yielded exempt income during the year. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedent, we direct the AO to consider only those investments for the purpose of computation of disallowance under Rule 8D of the Ru…

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. EXPORT IMPORT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

ITA 9468/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 9469/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3(1)(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 V/S Export Import Bank Of India, Centre One Building, Floor 21, World Trade Centre Complex, ……………… Respondent Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005 Pan : Aaace2769D

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…, we do not find any merit in the findings of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. 11. Be that as it may, we find that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del-Trib.), held that only those investments are to be considered for computing the average value of investments which yielded exempt income during the year. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedent, we direct the AO to consider only those investments for the purpose of computation of disallowance under Rule 8D of the Ru…

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. EXPORT IMPORT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

ITA 9467/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 9469/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3(1)(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 V/S Export Import Bank Of India, Centre One Building, Floor 21, World Trade Centre Complex, ……………… Respondent Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005 Pan : Aaace2769D

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…, we do not find any merit in the findings of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. 11. Be that as it may, we find that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del-Trib.), held that only those investments are to be considered for computing the average value of investments which yielded exempt income during the year. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedent, we direct the AO to consider only those investments for the purpose of computation of disallowance under Rule 8D of the Ru…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

ITA 7293/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 7292/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ita No. 6721/Mum/2025 Ita No. 7293/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(3)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 Pan : Aabct2577P V/S Thyrocare Technologies Limited, ……………… Respondent D/37, 1 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai - 400703

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramaniamFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

…f the Rules, only those investments which have yielded exempt income should be considered. 9. We find that this claim of the assessee is supported by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Delhi - Tribunal), wherein it was held that only those investments are to be considered for computing the average value of investments which yielded exempt income during the year. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedent, we direct the AO to consider only those investments for the purpose of computation of disallowance under Rule 8…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

ITA 7292/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 7292/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ita No. 6721/Mum/2025 Ita No. 7293/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(3)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 Pan : Aabct2577P V/S Thyrocare Technologies Limited, ……………… Respondent D/37, 1 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai - 400703

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramaniamFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

…f the Rules, only those investments which have yielded exempt income should be considered. 9. We find that this claim of the assessee is supported by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Delhi - Tribunal), wherein it was held that only those investments are to be considered for computing the average value of investments which yielded exempt income during the year. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedent, we direct the AO to consider only those investments for the purpose of computation of disallowance under Rule 8…

ACIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

ITA 6723/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 7292/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ita No. 6721/Mum/2025 Ita No. 7293/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(3)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 Pan : Aabct2577P V/S Thyrocare Technologies Limited, ……………… Respondent D/37, 1 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai - 400703

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramaniamFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

…f the Rules, only those investments which have yielded exempt income should be considered. 9. We find that this claim of the assessee is supported by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Delhi - Tribunal), wherein it was held that only those investments are to be considered for computing the average value of investments which yielded exempt income during the year. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedent, we direct the AO to consider only those investments for the purpose of computation of disallowance under Rule 8…

ACIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

ITA 6721/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 7292/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ita No. 6721/Mum/2025 Ita No. 7293/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(3)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 Pan : Aabct2577P V/S Thyrocare Technologies Limited, ……………… Respondent D/37, 1 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai - 400703

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramaniamFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

…f the Rules, only those investments which have yielded exempt income should be considered. 9. We find that this claim of the assessee is supported by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Delhi - Tribunal), wherein it was held that only those investments are to be considered for computing the average value of investments which yielded exempt income during the year. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedent, we direct the AO to consider only those investments for the purpose of computation of disallowance under Rule 8…

ACIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

ITA 6715/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 7292/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ita No. 6721/Mum/2025 Ita No. 7293/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(3)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 Pan : Aabct2577P V/S Thyrocare Technologies Limited, ……………… Respondent D/37, 1 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai - 400703

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramaniamFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

…f the Rules, only those investments which have yielded exempt income should be considered. 9. We find that this claim of the assessee is supported by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Delhi - Tribunal), wherein it was held that only those investments are to be considered for computing the average value of investments which yielded exempt income during the year. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedent, we direct the AO to consider only those investments for the purpose of computation of disallowance under Rule 8…

THE BOMBAY DYEING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 5274/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Jm\Nand\Nms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Am\N\Nita No.5274/Mum/2025\N(Assessment Year: 2018-19)\Nm/S. The Bombay Dyeing And\Nmanufacturing Company Limited,\Nneville House, Jn Heredia Marg,\Nballard Estate,\Nmumbai - 400 001\Npan: Aaact2328K\Nvs.\Nnational Faceless Appeal Centre,\Ndelhi (Deputy Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1),\Nmumbai - 400001\N(Appellant)\N(Respondent)\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Yogesh Thar, A.R.\Nms. Sukanya Jairam, A.R &\Nshri Saurabh Surana, A.R.\Nrespondent By\N:\Nshri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N22.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N18.03.2025\Norder\Nper Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:\Nthis Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned\Ncommissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. Cit(A)' For Short], National Faceless\Nappeal Centre (‘Nfac' For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'),\Npertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.' For Short) 2018-19.\N2.\Nthe Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N“1. Ground No. 1: Disallowance Of Rs. 4,65,28,171/- Under Section 14A Of The\Nact:\N1.

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250Section 43C

…ntire investments\nby excluding those which have not yielded exempt income during the year under\nconsideration. For this proposition, the Ld. A.R. relied on the decision of the Special Bench\nof the Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Delhi\nTribunal) (SB) and various other decisions which are as under:\n“PCIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.) Ltd [(2019) 261 Taxman 47 (Delhi HC)];\nDepartment's SLP Dismissed in (268 Taxman 317) (SC)\nACB India Ltd. Vs. ACIT [62 taxmann.com71 (Delhi HC)]\nACIT v. Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Delhi Tribunal) (SB)]\nGodre…

BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ITA 5410/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…the disallowance sustained the disallowance at the rate of 0.5% of the average 0.5% of the average investment. Following Following the decision of the Special Bench in Vireet the decision of the Special Bench in Vireet Investment Ltd. reported in reported in 165 ITD 27 , the ld CIT(A) , the ld CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the Assessing Officer to restrict the average of investment investments which had actually yielded exempt income during the relevant year. The Ld. actually yielded exempt income during the relevant year. The Ld. actually yielded exempt income during the relevant year. The L…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CICLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ITA 5409/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…the disallowance sustained the disallowance at the rate of 0.5% of the average 0.5% of the average investment. Following Following the decision of the Special Bench in Vireet the decision of the Special Bench in Vireet Investment Ltd. reported in reported in 165 ITD 27 , the ld CIT(A) , the ld CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the Assessing Officer to restrict the average of investment investments which had actually yielded exempt income during the relevant year. The Ld. actually yielded exempt income during the relevant year. The Ld. actually yielded exempt income during the relevant year. The L…

BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIYA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2016-17 is\ndismissed whereas appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is partly\nallowed and appeal for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 5408/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 36(1)(iii)

…e for indirect interest\nexpenditure.\n5.3 But in respect of administrative expenses, the Ld. CIT(A)\nsustained the disallowance at the rate of 0.5% of the average\ninvestment. Following the decision of the Special Bench in Vireet\nInvestment Ltd. reported in 165 ITD 27, the ld CIT(A) directed the\nAssessing Officer to restrict the average of investments which had\nactually yielded exempt income during the relevant year. The Ld.\nCIT(A) noted that addition of Rs.46,51,891/- was less than amount\nof exempted income earned and accordingly he restricted the\ndisallowance to Rs.46,51,891/-. The relevant finding of th…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 1 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CO RPORATION LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2523/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

…was directed to be deleted. In support of the same, Ld. CIT(A) relied upon Hon’ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. 45 taxmann.com 116 and Special Bench decision in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB). 4. Regarding the Additional Ground of Mine Closure expenses u/s. 37(1) of the Act. The assessee sought deduction of Rs.62,91,01,252/- on account of Mine Closure Expense under Section 37(1) of the Act. This claim represents the net amount derived from the provision made during the year (Rs.65,05,59,333/) after reducing the provision fr…

ACITLTU-2, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 945/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.895/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ashok Leyland Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Income Tax, Chennai 600 032. Company Circle – Ltu, Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca4651L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.945/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Income Tax, 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Large Taxpayer Unit – 2, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2017 Passed By The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT

…pages 7 to 11 of the assessment order. Therefore, we find no force in the arguments of the ld. AR that there was no satisfaction at all in this regard. But, however, considering the Delhi Special Bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments P. Ltd. 58 ITR (Trib) 313 – Del-SB, we remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for his consideration for computation of disallowance taking into account those investments, which yielded exempt income. Thus, Ground No. 3 (3.1 to 3.6) raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 28. Ground No. 4 (4.1 to 4.4) raised by the assessee in challenging the acti…

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 1 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 895/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.895/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ashok Leyland Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Income Tax, Chennai 600 032. Company Circle – Ltu, Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca4651L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.945/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Income Tax, 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Large Taxpayer Unit – 2, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2017 Passed By The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT

…pages 7 to 11 of the assessment order. Therefore, we find no force in the arguments of the ld. AR that there was no satisfaction at all in this regard. But, however, considering the Delhi Special Bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments P. Ltd. 58 ITR (Trib) 313 – Del-SB, we remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for his consideration for computation of disallowance taking into account those investments, which yielded exempt income. Thus, Ground No. 3 (3.1 to 3.6) raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 28. Ground No. 4 (4.1 to 4.4) raised by the assessee in challenging the acti…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOLKATA vs. SNOWFALL COMMOTRADE PVT LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 2087/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata………...….……………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Snowfall Commotrade Pvt. Ltd….……………………………...…..…..Respondent 27, Modi Building, R N Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001. [Pan: Aaics0531J] C.O. 85/Kol/2025 (In Ita No.2087/Kol/2025) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Snowfall Commotrade Pvt. Ltd.….……………………………… Cross-Objector 27, Modi Building, R N Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001. [Pan: Aaics0531J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata ……………………………..…...…..…………….Respondent Appearances By: Shri J. M. Thad, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 14ASection 250

…14A can only be made in respect of those investments which have actually yielded exempt income during the relevant assessment year. This view is fortified by the decision of the Special Bench of the Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (165 ITD 27), wherein it was held that only those investments that have earned dividend income during the year can be considered for the purpose of disallowance u/s.14A. The assessee has submitted a working for disallowance u/s.14A, and based on such working, the amount disallowable comes to Rs.3,250.97. The same appears reasonable and in consonance with the…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, JHANDEWLAN EXTN. vs. LOTUS HERBALS PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5143/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Amitabh Shuklaita No. 5143/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-20, No. 2, Forest Lane, Near New Delhi-110055 Ghitorni Metro Station, South West Delhi, Delhi-110030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0198F Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. & Ms. Deepashree Rao, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Amish S. Gupt, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)-27, New Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2025–26/1076443794(1) Dated 22.05.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 14A

…Rs.42,49,228/- made in the assessment order as reversed in the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion. Suffice to say, the earlier learned co-ordinate bench has already settled the same in light 3 Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd. of ACIT Vs. Vineet Investments Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 165 ITD 27 (Del. (SB) and ACB India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 347 ITR 108 (Del.) that only the dividend yielding investments ought to be taken into consideration whilst computing the impugned disallowance. This is what the learned CIT(A) has precisely done in the lower appellate discussion under challenge. We thus find no merit in the Revenue’s instant latter sub…

DY. CIT, INCOME TAX DEPTT. vs. NIVAYA RESOURCES PVT. LTD., GUJRAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 953/DEL/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra[Assessment Year: 2017] Dy. Cit, Aayakar Bhawan Vs. Nivaya Resources Pvt. Ltd. Haryana 211, World Trade Centre, Karnal Shamalkha Sayajigunj, Vadodra, Vadodra Gujarat 390020 Pan No.Aaica32981E Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.75/Del/2025 (In Ita No.953/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2017] Nivaya Resources Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit, Aayakar Bhawan 211, World Trade Centre, Haryana Shamalkha Sayajigunj, Karnal Vadodra, Vadodra Gujarat 390020 Pan No.Aaica32981E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 14ASection 68

…enged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance u/s.14A to the exempt income earned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that in view of the Special Bench decision of Delhi in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment Private Limited [2017] 58 ITR (Trib) 313, only income yielding investments are to be considered for the purpose of computing disallowance under Rule 8D (2)(iii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act. 12. In view of the above we direct the AO to consider only the income yielding investments for the purpose of making disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) following the decision of the special Bench in…

VEEDOL CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1945/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 4(1) Veedol Corporation Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Yule House, 8, Dr. Rajendra 8Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Prasad Sarani, Kolkata-700001, Vs. Square, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct1122C Assessee By : Shri Anup Sinha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bonnie Debbarma, DR
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…ITR 712 (Karnataka)[13-04-2022]. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of the Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB)/[2017] 58 ITR(T) 313 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB)/[2017] 165 ITD 27 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB)/[2017] 188 TTJ 1 Veedol Corporation Limited; A.Y. 2017-18 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB)[16-06-2017]. Considering the ratio laid down in the above decisions, we are inclined to set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. The ground no. 3 is allowed. 5. In the Result, the appeal of the assessee is partly…

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2037/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

…Section 115JB. The Ld. AO's action of adding back the disallowance computed under Rule 8D while assessing the book profit is held to be unjustified in view of the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi (Spl. Bench) in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Industries Ltd (165 ITD 27) and Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. JSW Energy Ltd. (60 taxmann.com 303). For the reasons set out in the foregoing, the Ld. AO is directed to restrict the addition in terms of clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB to Rs.5,53,878/-. These grounds therefore stand partly allowed.” 11.3 The Ld. DR submitted that the view of the Ld. AO…

Showing 1–20 of 882 · Page 1 of 45

...