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.

M/S Sunrise Industrial Traders Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-6, Mumbai

ITA 4956/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Sunrise Industrial Traders Cit(Appeals)-6, 3Rd Floor Limited; 503 Commerce House, Vs. Room No. 10, A Wing, Mittal 140 Nagindas Master Road; Court, Nariman Point, Fort, Mumbai – 400 023. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan No. Aaacs8256R (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Ms. C.J Ahuja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…M/s Sunrise Industrial Traders Ltd. Vs. CIT(Appeals)-6, Mumbai 1 ITA No. 4956/Mum/2019 – A.Y 2016-17 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Sunrise Industrial Traders CIT(Appeals)-6, 3rd Floor Limited; 503 Commerce House, Vs. Room No. 10, A Wing, Mittal 140 Nagindas Master Road; Court, Nariman Point, Fort, Mumbai – 400 023. Mumbai – 400 021. PAN No. AAACS8256R (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by : Ms. C.J Ahuja, A.R Revenue by : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, D.R Date of Hearing : 01.04.2021 Date of pronouncem…

Swelect Energy Systems Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2652/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2652/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Swelect Energy System Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 5, Numeric House, Vs. Income Tax, Sir P.S. Sivasami Salai, Corporate Circle -6(2), Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacn2366F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.04.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai, Dated 29.06.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 15, Chennai Dated 29.06.2018 In I.T.A.No.517/2016-17//Cit(A)-15 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit (Appeals) Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Notional Expenses Aggregating To Rs.2,49,84,018/- (Rs.2,51, 76,518 - Rs.1,92,500) For Maintaining Tax Free Portfolio/For Earning Tax Free Income To The Extent Of Rs,3,74,62,711/- On The Application Of Section 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 14A

…only those investments for computing average value of investment which yielded exempt income during the year under consideration as per Rule 8D(2)(iii) in view of the Delhi Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Delhi)(SB) and to pass detailed order. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 19th April, 2021 in Chennai. (S. JAYARAMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 19.04.2021 Vm/- आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant, 2.""थ"/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु" (अपील)/CIT…

Hero Motocrop Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

…8D could not be added while computing book profits as per section 115JB and declined to frame question of law. Further, reliance was also placed on the decision of the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd: 165 ITD 27 (Del Trib.), wherein the Tribunal inter alia, placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bhushan Steel Ltd. (supra), likewise, held that computation under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB (2) of the Act is to be made without resorting to computation as contemplated under section 14A read with rule 8D…

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2114/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…the assessee for the disallowance made under section 15JB of the Act as infructuous, he should have adjudicated the same on merit in the light of the order of the Hon’ble special bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs Vireet investments private Ltd reported in 165 ITD 27. 15. On the other hand the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 16. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. There are certain specified adjustments which needs to be made to work out the book profit as provided in the explanation (1) to section 115 JB of…

Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Circle-2(1) (2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1751/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…the assessee for the disallowance made under section 15JB of the Act as infructuous, he should have adjudicated the same on merit in the light of the order of the Hon’ble special bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs Vireet investments private Ltd reported in 165 ITD 27. 15. On the other hand the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 16. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. There are certain specified adjustments which needs to be made to work out the book profit as provided in the explanation (1) to section 115 JB of…

The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2293/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…the assessee for the disallowance made under section 15JB of the Act as infructuous, he should have adjudicated the same on merit in the light of the order of the Hon’ble special bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs Vireet investments private Ltd reported in 165 ITD 27. 15. On the other hand the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 16. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. There are certain specified adjustments which needs to be made to work out the book profit as provided in the explanation (1) to section 115 JB of…

Lambda Therapeutic Research Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt. CIT, Range-4, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3492/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…the assessee for the disallowance made under section 15JB of the Act as infructuous, he should have adjudicated the same on merit in the light of the order of the Hon’ble special bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs Vireet investments private Ltd reported in 165 ITD 27. 15. On the other hand the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 16. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. There are certain specified adjustments which needs to be made to work out the book profit as provided in the explanation (1) to section 115 JB of…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Lamda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3470/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…the assessee for the disallowance made under section 15JB of the Act as infructuous, he should have adjudicated the same on merit in the light of the order of the Hon’ble special bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs Vireet investments private Ltd reported in 165 ITD 27. 15. On the other hand the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 16. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. There are certain specified adjustments which needs to be made to work out the book profit as provided in the explanation (1) to section 115 JB of…

Lambda Therapeutic Research Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2276/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…the assessee for the disallowance made under section 15JB of the Act as infructuous, he should have adjudicated the same on merit in the light of the order of the Hon’ble special bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs Vireet investments private Ltd reported in 165 ITD 27. 15. On the other hand the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 16. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. There are certain specified adjustments which needs to be made to work out the book profit as provided in the explanation (1) to section 115 JB of…

Kalyani Steels Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 265/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.265/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2014-15 Kalyani Steels Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-14, Mundhwa, Pune – 411 036 Pune Pan : Aaack7315D Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…be confined to those securities in respect of which exempt income is earned and not the total investments. Similar view has been taken by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet 6 Kalyani Steels Limited Investments (P) Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB). In view of the afore referred precedents, we set aside the impugned order to this extent and remit the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for re- computing the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) by considering only such investments in calculating the average value of investments, which yielded exempt income during the year. The…

M/S. Advik Hi-Tech Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3094/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3094/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Advik Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Gat No.357/99, Chakan Talegaon Pune Road, Vill-Kharabwadi, Tal. Khed, Chakan, Pune 410 501 Pan : Aacca3106E Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…of Rule 8D(2)(iii), should be confined to those securities in respect of which exempt income is earned and not the total investments. Similar view has been taken by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB). In view of the afore referred precedents, we set aside the impugned order to this extent and remit the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for re- computing the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) by considering only such investments in calculating the average value of investments, which have yielded exempt income during the year.…

Hind Filters Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 101/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)

…r.w.s. 14A of the Act, the assessing officer should only consider those investments, which have yielded exempt income during the year. For such proposition, he relied upon the decision of ITAT, Delhi Special Bench in case of ACIT vs Vireet Investments (P) Ltd 165 ITD 27 (Del). 5. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the assessing officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). I.T.A. No.101/Mum/2019 3 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. In our view, the contention of learned Counsel for the assessee that only those investments which have yielde…

Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Limited, Bhubnaeswar vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 343/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.343/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Industrial Development Vs Dcit, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar Corporation Of Orissa Limited (Idcol), Idcol House, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 Pan No. : Aaaci 4821 L (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra, Ca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 14.08.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015, On The Following Grounds :- 1. The Order Of Assessment As Well As Appeal Is Against Law, Weight Of Evidences & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer As Well As The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Most Arbitrarily Disallowed Rs. 1,63,05,059/-, U/S 14A Against The Exempted Income Of Rs.5,50,000/-, Being Dividend Received From Associate Companies In Routine Manner, Without Properly Recording The Dissatisfaction Of The Assessing Officer 3. The Interest On Income Tax Refund Of Rs.8,04,924/-, Which Is Adjusted Against Demand, Was Not Properly Intimated For Which The Same Is Not Recognized As Income. 4. The Learned Assessing Officer Added Rs.6,66,721/-, As Interest On Fixed Deposit Based On The Comment Of The Auditor, Which Is Recognized In Subsequent Assessment Year. 5. The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Adding, Amount Disallowed U/S 14A, Of Rs. 1,63,05,059/-, Rs.8,04,924/-, On Account Of Income

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, DR
Section 111JSection 115JSection 14ASection 68

…f the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Id. counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Special Bench in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415/165 ITD 27 (Delhi - Trib) (SB), wherein it is held that no increase or decrease can be effected in the book profit calculated under section 115JB on account of certain disallowance made under section 14A. 17. Considering the above facts, we are of the view that Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. (supra) has formulated follo…

Roha Dyechem P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2742/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2742 /मुं/2019 ("न.व.2014-15) M/S. Roha Dyechem Pvt. Ltd., A44/45, Road No.2, Midc, Andheri(E), Mumbai 400 093 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aaacr4974P बनाम/ Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Ms Smita verma
Section 115JSection 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “एस एम सी” IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं. 2742 /मुं/2019 ("न.व.2014-15) M/s. Roha Dyechem Pvt. Ltd., A44/45, Road No.2, MIDC, Andheri(E), Mumbai 400 093 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant PAN:AAACR4974P बनाम/ Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range – 7(4), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee by : Shri Snehal Shah Revenue by : Ms Smita verma सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 10/12/2020 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/03/2021 Date of Pronoun…

Rosa Power Supply Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 14(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1054/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Rosa Power Supply Company Dy. Commissioner Limited, 3Rd Floor, South Wing, Vs. Income-Tax-14(3)(1), Reliance Centre, Near Prabhat 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Colony, Off W.E. Highway, New Marine Lines, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai -400 055 Pan No. Aabcr8917M (Assessee) (Revenue) The Dy. Commissioner Rosa Power Supply Income-Tax-14(3)(1), Vs. Company Limited, Room No.455, 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, South Wing, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Reliance Centre, Near Prabhat Mumbai – 400 020 Colony, Off W.E. Highway, Santacruz (East), Mumbai -400 055 Pan No. Aabcr8917M (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Amit Khatiwala, A.R Revenue By : Shri S.C. Tiwari, D.R Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/03/2021

For Appellant: Shri Amit Khatiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C. Tiwari, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…htful consideration to the aforesaid claims of the revenue and are afraid that the same does not find favour with us. As observed by the CIT(A), the „Special bench‟ of the ITAT Dehli in the case of ACIT & Anr. Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Limited & Anr. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Delhi) (SB) had clearly observed that for the purpose of computing the „average value of investments‟ within the meaning of Rule 8D(2)(iii) the investments which had not yielded any exempt income during the year are liable to be excluded. Also, the „Special bench‟ of the Tribunal had observed, that computation under clause (f) of „Explanation 1‟…

D.S. Prabhudas & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 115/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S D.S. Purbhoodas & Co. Asstt. Commissioner Of 11Th Floor, Mafatlal Centre, Vs. Income Tax -17(1), Nariman Point, Room No. 117, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 001 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C. Tiwari, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…puting the „average value of investments‟ while quantifying the disallowance under Sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D (2)(iii). Our aforesaid view is fortified by the order of the ITAT, Special bench in the case of ACIT & Anr. Vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (De)(SB). In the said case it was observed by the Tribunal that as per rule 8D(2)(iii), only those investments were to be considered for computing „average value of investment‟ which had yielded exempt income during year under consideration. Accordingly, in the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations, we herein direct the A.O to exclude the mutual…

DCIT Circle-7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahindra Lifespace Developers Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 2337/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2021AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ule 8D(2) of the Rules, the only those investments which had actually yielded exempt income need to be considered for working out the disallowance thereon. This has been held by the Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments reported in 165 ITD 27. However, if adoption of such computation mechanism results in absurdity, then the proportionate income theory is to be adopted for working out the disallowance as we hold that Rule 8D computation mechanism should be considered as the last resort and is not automatic in its application. In this regard, the ld. AR placed reliance in the case of Fut…

Anrak Aluminium Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed in foregoing terms

ITA 994/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 994/HYD/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s.Anrak Aluminium DCIT, Circle-1(1), Limited, Vs HYDERABAD HYDERABAD [PAN: AAGCA2333M] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri A.V.Raghuram, AR For Revenue : Smt. Anjala Sahu, DR Date of Hearing : 21-01-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 08-02-2021 O R D E R PER BENCH : This assessee’s appeal for AY.2013-14 arises from the CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad’s order dated 17-03-2017 passed in a…

Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1431/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1431 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income- Colgate Research Centre, Main Vs. Tax-10(3) Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400076

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80ISection 8o

…investments which though had not yielded any exempt income during the year under consideration. In support of his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R relied on the order of the ITAT special bench in the case of ACIT & Anr. Vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del)(SB). In the backdrop of his aforesaid contentions, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the A.O be directed to re-compute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) after excluding the investments which had not yielded any exempt income during the year in question. 10. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‗D.R‘) relied on t…

DCIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1350/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1431 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income- Colgate Research Centre, Main Vs. Tax-10(3) Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400076

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80ISection 8o

…investments which though had not yielded any exempt income during the year under consideration. In support of his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R relied on the order of the ITAT special bench in the case of ACIT & Anr. Vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del)(SB). In the backdrop of his aforesaid contentions, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the A.O be directed to re-compute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) after excluding the investments which had not yielded any exempt income during the year in question. 10. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‗D.R‘) relied on t…