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.

Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-21, New Delhi

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

ITA 2086/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2014-15 Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Vs Addl. Cit, Ltd., Range-21, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23Rd January, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal No. 1 & 2 Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. That Both The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Ao Erred In Law & In Facts In Disallowance Of Rs.1,08,69,547/- U/S 14A In A Mechanical Way Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Himself Has Disallowed Rs 2.41 Lakhs & That There Cannot Be Any Further Disallowance U/S 14A Without A Cogent Reason. 2. That Both The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Ao Erred In Law & In Facts In Appreciating That Strategic Investments In Dabur India Limited As The Promoter Shareholder, Would Not Form Part Of Disallowance U/S 14A.”

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…ed. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Ram Ownership Trust, reported in 318 CTR 233 (Madras) and the ITAT Delhi Special Bench decision in the case of Vireet Investment, reported in 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB). 11. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). 12. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find, the assesse…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 967/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…earing shall be granted to the assessee. 23. We would also hold that the adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A could not be made while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB as per the decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in ACIT V/s Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (165 ITD 27) as well as the recent decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Sobha Developers Ltd. V/s DCIT (2021; 125 Taxmann.com 72). We order so. 24. To summarize, Ground Nos. 2.1 & 2.2 of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. Ground Nos.2.3 & 2.4 do not require any specific adjudication since the assessee has not maintained separate books of accounts which…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 947/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…earing shall be granted to the assessee. 23. We would also hold that the adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A could not be made while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB as per the decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in ACIT V/s Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (165 ITD 27) as well as the recent decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Sobha Developers Ltd. V/s DCIT (2021; 125 Taxmann.com 72). We order so. 24. To summarize, Ground Nos. 2.1 & 2.2 of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. Ground Nos.2.3 & 2.4 do not require any specific adjudication since the assessee has not maintained separate books of accounts which…

ACIT Corporate Circle 1, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1883/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…earing shall be granted to the assessee. 23. We would also hold that the adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A could not be made while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB as per the decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in ACIT V/s Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (165 ITD 27) as well as the recent decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Sobha Developers Ltd. V/s DCIT (2021; 125 Taxmann.com 72). We order so. 24. To summarize, Ground Nos. 2.1 & 2.2 of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. Ground Nos.2.3 & 2.4 do not require any specific adjudication since the assessee has not maintained separate books of accounts which…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Madurai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1846/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…earing shall be granted to the assessee. 23. We would also hold that the adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A could not be made while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB as per the decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in ACIT V/s Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (165 ITD 27) as well as the recent decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Sobha Developers Ltd. V/s DCIT (2021; 125 Taxmann.com 72). We order so. 24. To summarize, Ground Nos. 2.1 & 2.2 of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. Ground Nos.2.3 & 2.4 do not require any specific adjudication since the assessee has not maintained separate books of accounts which…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1272/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…earing shall be granted to the assessee. 23. We would also hold that the adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A could not be made while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB as per the decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in ACIT V/s Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (165 ITD 27) as well as the recent decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Sobha Developers Ltd. V/s DCIT (2021; 125 Taxmann.com 72). We order so. 24. To summarize, Ground Nos. 2.1 & 2.2 of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. Ground Nos.2.3 & 2.4 do not require any specific adjudication since the assessee has not maintained separate books of accounts which…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1078/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…earing shall be granted to the assessee. 23. We would also hold that the adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A could not be made while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB as per the decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in ACIT V/s Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (165 ITD 27) as well as the recent decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Sobha Developers Ltd. V/s DCIT (2021; 125 Taxmann.com 72). We order so. 24. To summarize, Ground Nos. 2.1 & 2.2 of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. Ground Nos.2.3 & 2.4 do not require any specific adjudication since the assessee has not maintained separate books of accounts which…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1077/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…earing shall be granted to the assessee. 23. We would also hold that the adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A could not be made while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB as per the decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in ACIT V/s Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (165 ITD 27) as well as the recent decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Sobha Developers Ltd. V/s DCIT (2021; 125 Taxmann.com 72). We order so. 24. To summarize, Ground Nos. 2.1 & 2.2 of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. Ground Nos.2.3 & 2.4 do not require any specific adjudication since the assessee has not maintained separate books of accounts which…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1076/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…earing shall be granted to the assessee. 23. We would also hold that the adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A could not be made while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB as per the decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in ACIT V/s Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (165 ITD 27) as well as the recent decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Sobha Developers Ltd. V/s DCIT (2021; 125 Taxmann.com 72). We order so. 24. To summarize, Ground Nos. 2.1 & 2.2 of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. Ground Nos.2.3 & 2.4 do not require any specific adjudication since the assessee has not maintained separate books of accounts which…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1063/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…earing shall be granted to the assessee. 23. We would also hold that the adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A could not be made while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB as per the decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in ACIT V/s Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (165 ITD 27) as well as the recent decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Sobha Developers Ltd. V/s DCIT (2021; 125 Taxmann.com 72). We order so. 24. To summarize, Ground Nos. 2.1 & 2.2 of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. Ground Nos.2.3 & 2.4 do not require any specific adjudication since the assessee has not maintained separate books of accounts which…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1062/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…earing shall be granted to the assessee. 23. We would also hold that the adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A could not be made while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB as per the decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in ACIT V/s Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (165 ITD 27) as well as the recent decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Sobha Developers Ltd. V/s DCIT (2021; 125 Taxmann.com 72). We order so. 24. To summarize, Ground Nos. 2.1 & 2.2 of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. Ground Nos.2.3 & 2.4 do not require any specific adjudication since the assessee has not maintained separate books of accounts which…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1061/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…earing shall be granted to the assessee. 23. We would also hold that the adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A could not be made while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB as per the decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in ACIT V/s Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (165 ITD 27) as well as the recent decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Sobha Developers Ltd. V/s DCIT (2021; 125 Taxmann.com 72). We order so. 24. To summarize, Ground Nos. 2.1 & 2.2 of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. Ground Nos.2.3 & 2.4 do not require any specific adjudication since the assessee has not maintained separate books of accounts which…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1060/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…earing shall be granted to the assessee. 23. We would also hold that the adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A could not be made while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB as per the decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in ACIT V/s Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (165 ITD 27) as well as the recent decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Sobha Developers Ltd. V/s DCIT (2021; 125 Taxmann.com 72). We order so. 24. To summarize, Ground Nos. 2.1 & 2.2 of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. Ground Nos.2.3 & 2.4 do not require any specific adjudication since the assessee has not maintained separate books of accounts which…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1059/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…earing shall be granted to the assessee. 23. We would also hold that the adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A could not be made while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB as per the decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in ACIT V/s Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (165 ITD 27) as well as the recent decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Sobha Developers Ltd. V/s DCIT (2021; 125 Taxmann.com 72). We order so. 24. To summarize, Ground Nos. 2.1 & 2.2 of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. Ground Nos.2.3 & 2.4 do not require any specific adjudication since the assessee has not maintained separate books of accounts which…

SMC Global Securities Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range 8, New Delih

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

ITA 7816/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7816/Del/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 14A

…those investment are to be considered for average value of investment which yield exempt income during the year. We find that the aforesaid proposition is duly supported by the decision of the Special Bench in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment Private Limited (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB). Similar view has been expressed by coordinate Benches including Shiv Narayan Nemani Shares and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2021) 132 taxmann.com 244 (Mumbai). The additional ground is accordingly adjudicated in favour of the assessee. 5. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that once the ground No.5 of the additional ground…

M/S Corporation Bank, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Mangalore

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1678/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)Section 40a

…wance is not called for as per the decision rendered by the jurisdictional Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Micro Labs (383 ITR 490)(Kar). This aspect has also not been examined by the AO. Further, it has been held in the case of Vireet Investment (165 ITD 27) by Delhi Special bench that only those investments, which has yielded dividend income should be considered for computing average value of investments. Before us, the Ld A.R also relied on certain decisions in order to contend that the provisions of sec.14A itself are not applicable to banks. Thus, we notice that various contentions are involved i…

The Supreme Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5840/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 115JSection 14A

…has restricted the addition to the extent of Rs. 16,98,745/-. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that as per the ITAT Special Bench Delhi decision in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt Ltd, 165 ITD 27 (Delhi Trib), the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act cannot be added while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 1.3 Heard both the sides on this issue and perused the decision of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd (Supra), wherein held that disallowance made u/s 14A cannot be added for computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act…

The Supreme Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7261/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 115JSection 14A

…has restricted the addition to the extent of Rs. 16,98,745/-. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that as per the ITAT Special Bench Delhi decision in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt Ltd, 165 ITD 27 (Delhi Trib), the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act cannot be added while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 1.3 Heard both the sides on this issue and perused the decision of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd (Supra), wherein held that disallowance made u/s 14A cannot be added for computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act…

DCIT, Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Supreme Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4754/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 115JSection 14A

…has restricted the addition to the extent of Rs. 16,98,745/-. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that as per the ITAT Special Bench Delhi decision in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt Ltd, 165 ITD 27 (Delhi Trib), the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act cannot be added while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 1.3 Heard both the sides on this issue and perused the decision of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd (Supra), wherein held that disallowance made u/s 14A cannot be added for computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act…

Shri Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale, Pune vs. Dy CIT-CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 860/Mum/2021 filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

ITA 858/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Anuj kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Surbhi Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 14ASection 153A

…d proportionate disallowance thereon @ 0.5% was only Rs. 54,09,075/-. He, therefore, submitted that the disallowance could not exceed the above sum. For this proposition, he relied upon the decision of the Special Bench in case of Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (165 ITD 27) and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of ACB Investments Ltd. (374 ITR 160). 12. The ld. DR vehemently objected to the above submission and stated that even if there is no exempt income received during the year such investments needs to be considered for working out disallowance. She further stated that the Rule 8D(2)(iii) doe…