ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.

165 ITD 27Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2017#55 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 371,084 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.

Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 71/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.71/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.88/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Dcit Private Limited Corporate Circle-2(1) (Formerly Known As Gamesa Renewable Chennai. बनाम/ Pvt.Ltd. Before That Known As Gamesa Wind Vs. Turbine Pvt.Ltd.) 334, Futura Tech Park, 8Th Floor, Block B Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaccg-6027-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Fca) & Shri Shrenik Chordia (Ca) – Ld.Ar !थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sasi Kumar (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08-09-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013- 14 & 2014-15 Have Identical Facts & Issues. The Appeal For Ay 2013- 14 Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 30-10-2017 Passed By Ld.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Sasi Kumar (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 92C

…covered in assessee’s favor by earlier decision of Tribunal for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, ITA Nos. 1420 &amp; 376/Mds/2017 dated 13-11- 2017. The bench, in para-27, considering the decision of Special bench of Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. (165 ITD 27), held that disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D has no application while computing the book profit u/s 115JB. Respectfully following the same, we direct Ld. AO not to make this adjustment u/s 115JB. The corresponding grounds raised by the assessee stand partly allowed. The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order. Assessment Year 2014-15…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Sinnar Thermal Power Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2444/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Aby T Vakery & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit, Cc 6(4) Vs. M/S Sinnar Thermal Room No. 1925, 19Th Power Ltd. Floor, Air India Building, A150-151, Ground Floor, Nariman Point, K.H. No. 407, A Block, Mumbai-400021 Mahipalpur Extension New Delhi-110037 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Rakh, DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 260A

…make any adjustment in respect of disallowance u/s 14A while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 5.2 Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The special bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT v/s Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. vide 165 ITD 27 held that the disallowance made u/s 14A of the act is not to be added for computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The ITAT Mumbai in the case of the assessee itself for A.Y. 2017-18 vide ITA No. 253/Mum/2020 dated 05.05.2021 after following the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. has decided…

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2525/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2023AY 2009-10
Section 14ASection 254(2)Section 438Section 43B

…ee company has got no relevance, hence, the argument made by the ld. AR in that regard and reliance placed by him on certain decisions need not be adjudicated at all. We find that a Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments reported in 165 ITD 27 had held that only those investments which had yielded exempt income should be considered for the purpose of working out the disallowance under rule 8D(2) of the rules. Accordingly, we direct the ld. AO to recompute the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) of the rules by considering only those investments which had actually yielded exempt income an…

Finolex Industries Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Akurdi, Pune

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

ITA 839/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon. Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.Finolex Industries Limited, Vs Acit, Circle-9, Block No.D-1/10 Midc, Pune. Chinchwad, Pune-411019 Pan: Aaacf 2634 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/08/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 12.06.2023 For A.Y.2016-17 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. Pathak, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE „A‟ BENCHES :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, HON. VICE-PRESIDENT &amp; SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, HON. JUDICIAL MEMBER Finolex Industries Limited, vs ACIT, Circle-9, Block No.D-1/10 MIDC, Pune. Chinchwad, Pune-411019 PAN: AAACF 2634 A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde, DR Date of hearing : 08/08/2023 Date of pronouncement : 14/08/2023 O R D E R Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, dated 12.06.2023 for…

ACIT, Ncc-8, Chennai vs. Saint Gobain India P Ltd, Chennai

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 576/CHNY/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 40

…essee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We noted that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Delhi Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.502/Del/2012 &amp; CO No.68/Del/2014, reported in 165 ITD 27. As regards to normal computation, the CIT(A) directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to the extent of investment yielding dividend income only. For this, the CIT(A) observed as under:- (i) The AR of the appellant also argued that without prejudice to their submission that the disallowance under Rule 8D is not applicable, the average value of…

Saint Gobain India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu 2, Chennai

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1978/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 40

…essee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We noted that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Delhi Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.502/Del/2012 &amp; CO No.68/Del/2014, reported in 165 ITD 27. As regards to normal computation, the CIT(A) directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to the extent of investment yielding dividend income only. For this, the CIT(A) observed as under:- (i) The AR of the appellant also argued that without prejudice to their submission that the disallowance under Rule 8D is not applicable, the average value of…

JCIT (OSD) Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Saint Gobain Glass India India Limited, Sriperumbudur

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1977/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 40

…essee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We noted that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Delhi Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.502/Del/2012 &amp; CO No.68/Del/2014, reported in 165 ITD 27. As regards to normal computation, the CIT(A) directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to the extent of investment yielding dividend income only. For this, the CIT(A) observed as under:- (i) The AR of the appellant also argued that without prejudice to their submission that the disallowance under Rule 8D is not applicable, the average value of…

JCIT (OSD) Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Saint Gobain Glass India India Limited, Sriperumbudur

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1976/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 40

…essee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We noted that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Delhi Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.502/Del/2012 &amp; CO No.68/Del/2014, reported in 165 ITD 27. As regards to normal computation, the CIT(A) directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to the extent of investment yielding dividend income only. For this, the CIT(A) observed as under:- (i) The AR of the appellant also argued that without prejudice to their submission that the disallowance under Rule 8D is not applicable, the average value of…

Shri. Pollamreddy Sreedhar Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 429/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)

…all decide the issue, keeping in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Max Opp Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC) and also the decision of Special Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. reported in 165 ITD 27. Pollam Reddy Shreedhar Reddy, Bangalore Page 15 of 16 10. Next argument of assessee’s counsel is that when both interest free and interest-bearing funds are available with the assessee, it was to be presumed that investment in exempted yielding assets were made out of interest free funds. For this purpose, he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble S…

Samco Securities Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1328/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhsamco Securities Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Appeal A/1004, Naman Midtown, Centre (Nfac) Senapati Bapat Road, Prabhadevi Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics2455A Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ram Krishna Kedia Date Of Hearing 06.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.02.2023 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Disallowance U/S. 14A Of Rs. 1,51,214/- Made By The Ld Ao, Without Appreciating Facts, Submissions & Evidences In Proper Perspective & Without Assigning Any Proper Reasons 2. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Which Is Bad In Law & Violating The Principle Of Natural Justice As Ld Cit(A) Passed Order Without Giving Opportunity Of Virtual Online Hearing & Also Without Disposing Ground No. 3 Of Appeal Regarding "Assessment Order Contrary To The Principle Of Natural Justice".

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ram Krishna Kedia
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…judicial pronouncements. “Ameya Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 83 ITR 46(SN) (Mum.)(Trib.) ACB India Ltd. Vs. ACIT, [2015] 62 taxmann.com 71 (Delhi) PTC India Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 69 ITR 37(SN.) (Delhi) (Trib.) ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27/58 ITR 313/154 DTR 241/188 TTJ 1 (SB) (Delhi)(Trib.) Dy. CIT v. Diamond Co. Ltd. (2017) 162 ITD 131 (Kol.) (Trib.) Yashoda Health Care Services P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 54 ITR 26 (Hyd.) (Trib.)” 6. We consider that the AO has not decided the alternative claim of the assessee. To compute the exempt income after taking into consideration the investmen…

M/S Manali Petrochemicals Limited, Guindy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai

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

ITA 369/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 369/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Manali Petrochemicals Ltd., The Dcit, Spic House, 88, V. Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Mount Road, Chennai Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaacm 3404D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2023

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. ACB India Ltd. Vs ACIT, reported in 374 ITR 108. This proposition is further supported by the decision of ITAT., Delhi Special Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., reported in 165 ITD 27 . Therefore, we are of the considered view that issue needs to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer in light of averments made by the assessee that it has sufficient own funds to cover investments made in shares and securities and further, the Assessing Officer has considered total investments including investments which does not yield exempt…

Acc Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

ITA 800/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Dcit (Ltu) 121, Cement House, M.K. Road 29Th Floor, Center-1 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit – 3(4) V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 Cement House,121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…oordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA.No.6638/MUM/2018 &amp; ITA.No. 268/MUM/2019, held as under: - “13. So far as disallowance of other administrative expenditure is considered, it is observed that Hon&#x27;ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. [165 ITD 27] has held as under: “Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income not includible in total income - Assessment year 2008-09 - Whether only those investments are to be considered for computing average value of investment which yielded exempt income during…

Dy. Comm of Income Tax-Central Circle 6(3), Mumbai vs. Beil Infrastructure, Gujarat

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

ITA 1950/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantvk-Vk-La- 586@Eaqcbz@2017 ¼Fu-Oa- 2012&13½ Beil Infrastructure Limited (Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited) Plot No.9701-16, Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Gujarat-393 002 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaacb8075F Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-6(3) Room No. 1903, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 021 Vk-Vk-La- 400@Eaqcbz@2017 ¼Fu-Oa- 2012&13½ Vk-Vk-La- 1950@Eaqcbz@2022 ¼Fu-Oa- 2015&16½ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-6(3) Room No. 1903, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Mumbai-400 021 Cuke Vs. Beil Infrastructure Limited (Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited) Plot No.117/18, Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Gujarat-393 002 ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Pan No. Aaacb8075F

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar &For Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234CSection 80Section 801A

…vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited in ITA No. 51 of 2016 decided by Hon’ble Bombay High Court; iii. PCIT vs. McDonald’s India Private Limited, 101 taxmann.com 86 (Delhi); iv. State Bank of Patiala, 99 taxmann.com 286 (SC); v. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. (2017), 165 ITD 27 (Del.) (SB) 4.3 In respect of ground no. 5 of appeal, the ld. AR submits that after the landfill pits are closed, the assessee has to incur expenditure on its maintenance viz: to manage sludge spillage, treatment of gases emanating from pit etc. For this purpose, the assessee has made a provision for post closure care expenditure Rs.6,16,17,191/-…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-3(4), Mumbai-400005 vs. M/S. Acc Limited, Mumbai-400020

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

ITA 1171/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Dcit (Ltu) 121, Cement House, M.K. Road 29Th Floor, Center-1 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit – 3(4) V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 Cement House,121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…oordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA.No.6638/MUM/2018 &amp; ITA.No. 268/MUM/2019, held as under: - “13. So far as disallowance of other administrative expenditure is considered, it is observed that Hon&#x27;ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. [165 ITD 27] has held as under: “Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income not includible in total income - Assessment year 2008-09 - Whether only those investments are to be considered for computing average value of investment which yielded exempt income during…

Beil Infrastructure Limited ('Beil')(Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd), Gujrat vs. DCIT Cen Cir 6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 586/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantvk-Vk-La- 586@Eaqcbz@2017 ¼Fu-Oa- 2012&13½ Beil Infrastructure Limited (Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited) Plot No.9701-16, Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Gujarat-393 002 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaacb8075F Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-6(3) Room No. 1903, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 021 Vk-Vk-La- 400@Eaqcbz@2017 ¼Fu-Oa- 2012&13½ Vk-Vk-La- 1950@Eaqcbz@2022 ¼Fu-Oa- 2015&16½ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-6(3) Room No. 1903, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Mumbai-400 021 Cuke Vs. Beil Infrastructure Limited (Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited) Plot No.117/18, Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Gujarat-393 002 ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Pan No. Aaacb8075F

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar &For Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234CSection 80Section 801A

…vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited in ITA No. 51 of 2016 decided by Hon’ble Bombay High Court; iii. PCIT vs. McDonald’s India Private Limited, 101 taxmann.com 86 (Delhi); iv. State Bank of Patiala, 99 taxmann.com 286 (SC); v. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. (2017), 165 ITD 27 (Del.) (SB) 4.3 In respect of ground no. 5 of appeal, the ld. AR submits that after the landfill pits are closed, the assessee has to incur expenditure on its maintenance viz: to manage sludge spillage, treatment of gases emanating from pit etc. For this purpose, the assessee has made a provision for post closure care expenditure Rs.6,16,17,191/-…

DCIT CC 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Beil Infrastructure Ltd. ( Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd, Anlkleshwar

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

ITA 400/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantvk-Vk-La- 586@Eaqcbz@2017 ¼Fu-Oa- 2012&13½ Beil Infrastructure Limited (Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited) Plot No.9701-16, Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Gujarat-393 002 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaacb8075F Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-6(3) Room No. 1903, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 021 Vk-Vk-La- 400@Eaqcbz@2017 ¼Fu-Oa- 2012&13½ Vk-Vk-La- 1950@Eaqcbz@2022 ¼Fu-Oa- 2015&16½ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-6(3) Room No. 1903, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Mumbai-400 021 Cuke Vs. Beil Infrastructure Limited (Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited) Plot No.117/18, Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Gujarat-393 002 ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Pan No. Aaacb8075F

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar &For Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234CSection 80Section 801A

…vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited in ITA No. 51 of 2016 decided by Hon’ble Bombay High Court; iii. PCIT vs. McDonald’s India Private Limited, 101 taxmann.com 86 (Delhi); iv. State Bank of Patiala, 99 taxmann.com 286 (SC); v. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. (2017), 165 ITD 27 (Del.) (SB) 4.3 In respect of ground no. 5 of appeal, the ld. AR submits that after the landfill pits are closed, the assessee has to incur expenditure on its maintenance viz: to manage sludge spillage, treatment of gases emanating from pit etc. For this purpose, the assessee has made a provision for post closure care expenditure Rs.6,16,17,191/-…

Wartsila India Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 480/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT D.R
Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

…pute the disallowance under rule 8D2(iii) of the Rules in view of the working given by the assessee extracted in the preceding paras in the light of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Special Bench of the Tribunal in case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. 165 ITD 27 by considering the dividend bearing investments for computing the disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules. 30. So far as question of following the order passed by the co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the earlier years as contended by the Ld. A.R. for the assessee is concerned every assessment year is to be ex…

Wartsila India Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 467/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT D.R
Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

…pute the disallowance under rule 8D2(iii) of the Rules in view of the working given by the assessee extracted in the preceding paras in the light of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Special Bench of the Tribunal in case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. 165 ITD 27 by considering the dividend bearing investments for computing the disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules. 30. So far as question of following the order passed by the co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the earlier years as contended by the Ld. A.R. for the assessee is concerned every assessment year is to be ex…

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1018/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 32ASection 801ASection 80I

…ITA. No. 1004&amp;1294/Kol /2013, (Assessment Year: 2014-15) respectively as well the judgment in the case of South India Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT [2021] 438 ITR 1 (SC) and Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 17 (1), New Delhi Vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.: [165 ITD 27] (Delhi Trib.) 5.5. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the order passed by the Assessing Officer and submitted that the Assessing Officer was correct in making the additions under Section 14A of the Act as per method of computation specified in Rule 8D of the Rules. 5.6. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the mater…

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

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

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ing the year should be considered for computation of disallowance under section 14A of the Act. We find that this claim of the assessee is supported by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Delhi-Trib.), wherein it was held that only those investments are to be considered for computing average value of investments, which yield exempt income during the year. Accordingly, we direct the AO to only considered those investments for the purpose of computation of State Bank of India ITA no.3645/Mum./2016 ITA no.4564/Mum./2016 disallowance…