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 371,239 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.

Hikal Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 5387/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2008-09
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

…ng of exempt income. For this purpose, we deem it fit to set aside ground No.11 to the file of ld. AO for denovo adjudication and decide the same in the light of decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investment decision reported in 165 ITD 27. M/s. Hikal Ltd., Accordingly, the ground No.11 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. The ground No.10 raised by the assessee is seeking claim of carry forward of losses in respect of Non-EOU units is consequential to ground No.1 & 2 adjudicated hereinabove. We have already held that losses incurred in Non-EOU units canno…

DCIT (OSD) Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Hikal Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 5372/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2009-10
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

…ng of exempt income. For this purpose, we deem it fit to set aside ground No.11 to the file of ld. AO for denovo adjudication and decide the same in the light of decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investment decision reported in 165 ITD 27. M/s. Hikal Ltd., Accordingly, the ground No.11 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. The ground No.10 raised by the assessee is seeking claim of carry forward of losses in respect of Non-EOU units is consequential to ground No.1 & 2 adjudicated hereinabove. We have already held that losses incurred in Non-EOU units canno…

Greaves Cotton Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 7742/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.7742/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2010-11) Greaves Cotton Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Motilal Oswal Tower, Junction Of Gokhale & Sayani Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025. Pan: Aaacg-2062-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(3), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai 400 020. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Smt. Aarti Vissanji, Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkari, Sr.A.R सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Smt. Aarti Vissanji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vranda U. Matkari, Sr.A.R
Section 10(54)Section 115OSection 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “ के ” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी गगन गोयल, लेखा सद"य के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.7742/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2010-11) Greaves Cotton Ltd. 3rd Floor, Motilal Oswal Tower, Junction of Gokhale & Sayani Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025. PAN: AAACG-2062-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(3), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai 400 020. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant by : Smt. Aarti Vissanji, Advocate…

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

…hi High Court in PCIT vs. Caraf Builders and Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 101 taxmann.com 167 (Del) (SLP Dismissed) (2019) 112 taxmann.com 322 (SC); ABC India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.615/2014 (Del) and Special Bench in ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (2017) 165 ITD 27 (SB Delhi ITAT) have also stated that for the assessment year in question those investments which have not yielded any exempt income cannot be taken into account for the purposes of calculating disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1963. The assessee in the instant case claims that where the investments n…

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

…hi High Court in PCIT vs. Caraf Builders and Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 101 taxmann.com 167 (Del) (SLP Dismissed) (2019) 112 taxmann.com 322 (SC); ABC India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.615/2014 (Del) and Special Bench in ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (2017) 165 ITD 27 (SB Delhi ITAT) have also stated that for the assessment year in question those investments which have not yielded any exempt income cannot be taken into account for the purposes of calculating disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1963. The assessee in the instant case claims that where the investments n…

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

…administrative expenditure component under Rule 8D(ii) of 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 t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4323/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

…it is the claim of the assessee that only investments which yield dividend income during the year should be considered. We find that claim of the assessee is supported by decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in 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 investment, which yields exempt income during the year. We further find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in Tata Sons Ltd vs ACIT, in ITA Nos. 3192 and 3508/Mum/2013, vide order dated 06/11/2019 for as…

Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4221/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

…it is the claim of the assessee that only investments which yield dividend income during the year should be considered. We find that claim of the assessee is supported by decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in 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 investment, which yields exempt income during the year. We further find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in Tata Sons Ltd vs ACIT, in ITA Nos. 3192 and 3508/Mum/2013, vide order dated 06/11/2019 for as…

Acira Consultancy Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1274/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1274/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 1275/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2015-16) Acira Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. 511/C, 6Th Floor, Sunshine Chs Ltd. Off. Chandivli Farm, Raheja Vihar, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072. Pan: Aaica9489N ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito-5(1)(4), Room No. 569, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. V.G. Ginde, Advocate With Sh. Kumar Kale, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Sh. V.G. Ginde, Advocate with Sh. Kumar Kale, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr-DR
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…e average value of investments. The ld. AR submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1273/Mum/2019 decided on 07.09.2021 and the decision of Special Bench in the case of Vireet Investments P. Ltd., 165 ITD 27 (Del. Trib.). The ld. AR prayed that only those shares on which the assessee has earned dividend income should be included for computing average value of investments under Rule 8D(iii). आअसं. 1274 & 1275/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2014-15 & 2015-16) ITA Nos. 1274 & 1275/M/2019 (AYs 2014-15 & 2015-16) 4. In respect of ground no.2, the ld. AR submitted that…

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

…n only ITA No.380/PUN/2020 for A.Y. 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & 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 L…

ACIT Cent. Cir 5(40, Mumbai vs. M/S. Wadhwa Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 148/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 The Asstt. Commissioner M/S. Wadhwa Group Of Income Tax, Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 5(4), 301 Platina, Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Plot C-59, Vs. Air India Building, G Block, Nariman Point, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 098 Pan: Aaccv3961G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O. Rajora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Asstt. Commissioner M/s. Wadhwa Group of Income Tax, Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 5(4), 301 Platina, Room No.1927, 19th Floor, Plot C-59, Vs. Air India Building, G Block, Nariman Point, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 098 PAN: AACCV3961G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Mahesh O. Rajora, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Kishor Dhule, D.R. Date of Hearing : 21 . 06 . 2022 Date of Pron…

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tech Mahindra P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3033/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 10ASection 250Section 2D

…it is the claim of the assessee that only investments which yield dividend income during the year should be considered. We find that claim of the assessee is supported by decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in 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 investment, which yields exempt income during the year. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to only considered those investments, for purpose of computation of disallowance Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, which yield dividend…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Pantaloon Industries Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5651/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 8(2) Vs. Pantaloon Industries Aayakar Bhavan Ltd, Ground Floor, M.K .Road Knowledge House, Off Mumbai – 400020. Jogeswari Vikroli Link Road, Shyam Nagar, Jogeswari (E) Mumbai – 400060. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp9866D Appellant .. Respondent Pantaloon Industries Ltd Vs. Dcit – 8(2) Ground Floor, Knowledge Aayakar Bhavan House, Off Jogeswari M.K .Road, Vikroli Link Road, Shyam Mumbai – 400 020. Nagar, Jogeswari (E) Mumbai – 400 060. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp9866D Appellant .. Respondent

Section 10(34)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT – 8(2) Vs. Pantaloon Industries Aayakar Bhavan Ltd, Ground Floor, M.K .Road Knowledge House, Off Mumbai – 400020. Jogeswari Vikroli Link Road, Shyam Nagar, Jogeswari (E) Mumbai – 400060. PAN/GIR No. : AABCP9866D Appellant .. Respondent Pantaloon Industries Ltd Vs. DCIT – 8(2) Ground Floor, Knowledge Aayakar Bhavan House, Off Jogeswari M.K .Road, Vikroli Link Road, Shyam Mumbai – 400 020. Nagar, Jogeswari (E) Mumbai – 400 060. PAN/GIR No. : AABCP9866D Appellant…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ind Sing Developers (P) Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 348/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: CA Shri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…ITA Nos.108, 109, 203, 204 & 348/Bang/2012 M/s. Ind Sing Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 24 of 71 assessment order to be quashed. It is also pertinent to mention herein the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT v. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. 165 ITD 27 (Delhi – Trib.) (SB) wherein it was held that when two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, that construction which favors the assessee must be adopted, which is in line with the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products, 88 ITR 192 (SC). This is a well-accepted construction recognized by various court…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ind- Sing Developers (P) Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 204/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: CA Shri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…ITA Nos.108, 109, 203, 204 & 348/Bang/2012 M/s. Ind Sing Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 24 of 71 assessment order to be quashed. It is also pertinent to mention herein the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT v. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. 165 ITD 27 (Delhi – Trib.) (SB) wherein it was held that when two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, that construction which favors the assessee must be adopted, which is in line with the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products, 88 ITR 192 (SC). This is a well-accepted construction recognized by various court…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ind- Sing Developers (P) Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 203/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: CA Shri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…ITA Nos.108, 109, 203, 204 & 348/Bang/2012 M/s. Ind Sing Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 24 of 71 assessment order to be quashed. It is also pertinent to mention herein the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT v. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. 165 ITD 27 (Delhi – Trib.) (SB) wherein it was held that when two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, that construction which favors the assessee must be adopted, which is in line with the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products, 88 ITR 192 (SC). This is a well-accepted construction recognized by various court…

M/S Ind Sing Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 109/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: CA Shri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…ITA Nos.108, 109, 203, 204 & 348/Bang/2012 M/s. Ind Sing Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 24 of 71 assessment order to be quashed. It is also pertinent to mention herein the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT v. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. 165 ITD 27 (Delhi – Trib.) (SB) wherein it was held that when two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, that construction which favors the assessee must be adopted, which is in line with the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products, 88 ITR 192 (SC). This is a well-accepted construction recognized by various court…

M/S Ind Sing Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 108/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: CA Shri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…ITA Nos.108, 109, 203, 204 & 348/Bang/2012 M/s. Ind Sing Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 24 of 71 assessment order to be quashed. It is also pertinent to mention herein the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT v. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. 165 ITD 27 (Delhi – Trib.) (SB) wherein it was held that when two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, that construction which favors the assessee must be adopted, which is in line with the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products, 88 ITR 192 (SC). This is a well-accepted construction recognized by various court…

Sonasta Resorts Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3) (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2109/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadales Rifaur Sonasta Resorts Pvt Vs. Ito – 5(3)(4) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 111, Small Scale Mk Road, Industrial, Prem Dev Mumbai – 400020. Co-Op Society Ltd, Udyog Nagar, Sv Road, Goregaon, Mumbai – 400062. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs0035L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ashokkumar Suthar.Ar Respondent By : Shri S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri AshokKumar Suthar.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Anbuselvam.DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…n funds utilization for investment in shares and mutual funds and to recompute the disallowance u/sec14A r.w.r 8D(2) IT Rules considering only those investments which yield exempted income and ratio of special bench ITAT decision of ACIT vs Vireet Investments(165 ITD 27)(SB Delhi) Further the Sonasta Resorts Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced…

Atul Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 823/AHD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumarasst.Year 2009-10 & Assessment Year : 2006-07 Atul Limited Dcit (Osd), Range-1 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Chambers Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Rasala Marg, Ellisbridge Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 380009. Pan : Aabca 2390 M Asst.Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year : 2006-07 & It(Tp)A No.1108/Ahd/2017 Asst.Year : 2007-08 Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Atul Limited Ahmedabad. 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Chambers Rasala Marg, Ellisbridge Ahmedabad 380009. Pan : Aabca 2390 M

For Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)

…on account of disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the outset stated that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., 165 ITD 27 (SB). The ld.DR was unable to controvert the above. 71. In view of the above, the order of the ld.CIT(A) allowing the assessee’s claim of no adjustment to be made to the book profits on account of disallowance of interest under section 14A of the Act is upheld. Ground No.4 is dismissed. 72. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed…