How many judgments cite ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.?

882 judgments on BharatTax cite ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (165 ITD 27), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 115JB, Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 8D, Section 37(1).

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 370,744 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 14A Section 115JB Section 143(3)Section 1961 Section 8D Section 37(1)Section 250 Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 115jb(2)section 14a(2)strategic investment book profits corporate guarantee section 115j disallowance under section 14a disallowance of interest expenditure section 115jb disallowance u/s 14a section 92b section 14a

Judgments citing ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.

Sterlite Technologies Limited, Aurangabad vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu Circle 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, the Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 584/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Sterlite Technologies Limited Principle Commissioner Of E-1 Waluj, Midc Industrial Income Tax- 27, Vs. Area, Aurangabad - 431136 Navi Mumbai Maharashtra (Pan: Aaecs8719B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Principle Commissioner Of Sterlite Technologies Limited Income Tax- 27, E-1 Waluj, Midc Industrial Vs. Navi Mumbai Area, Aurangabad - 431136 Maharashtra (Pan: Aaecs8719B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak Mehta, Cas Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr & Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2023-24/1058725938(1), Dated Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Ay 2016-17 13.12.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit, Ltu, Circle- 1, Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 21.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1.1 Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ao') In Not Allowing The Claim Of Appellant That The Rate Of Ddt In Respect Of Dividend Distributed To Its Overseas Holding Company Ought To Be Restricted To The Rate Of Tax Of 5% Prescribed Under Article 10(2) Of Applicable India- Mauritius Dtaa & That The Appellant Is Eligible For Refund Of Ddt Paid In Excess Of Such Rate.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Ms. Palak Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR and Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

…issue also by restricting the Sterlite Technologies Ltd. AY 2016-17 disallowance to Rs.85,000/- while computing the book profit under MAT provisions. This issue is also squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Special Bench in the case of Vireet Investment 165 ITD 27 (Del Trib)(SB). Accordingly, in the given factual matrix and the position of law, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding arrived at by ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, ground No.5 and 6 are dismissed. 10. Ground No.7 is in respect of disallowance u/s.43B of Rs. 4,83,92,306/- which ld. Assessing Officer has added while compu…

DCIT Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai, Air India vs. Aarti Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4869/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawaldy. Cit, Central Circle-3(2) Aarti Industries Limited R. No. 1913, 19Th Floor, 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Mulund Goregaon Link Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080 Pan/Gir No. Aabca 2787 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue, Against The Order Dated 30.10.2023 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16. 2. Ground No. 1 In The Appeal Reads As Under: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowances Made By The A.O. To Restrict The Deduction U/S. 80Ia Of The Act Despite The Fact That The Issue Has Not Attained Finality & Pending For Adjudication Before The Hon'Ble Supreme Court? – Rs.396,81,798/- 3. Briefly The Facts Are, The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity Engaged In Manufacturing & Sale Of Chemicals, Fertilizers & Intermediaries. For Such Manufacturing Activity, The Assessee Has Set Up A Plant At Plot No. 801/23, Gidc, Phase-Iii

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 133(6)Section 80I

…y. CIT vs. Aarti Industries Limited 12. The assessee contested the aforesaid disallowance before the ld. first appellate authority. Following the decision of ITAT Special Bench in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415/165 ITD 27 (Delhi - Tri) (SB) , the ld. first appellate authority directed the A.O. to compute the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act taking the average value of those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year. He further directed that if upon such computation, the resulting disallowance comes to a figure less than the suo motu disallowance…

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1174/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 319& 321/Mum/2023 A.Ys: 2007-08 & 2011-12 Patanjali Food Ltd (Formerly Vs Dy. CIT, CC – 7(2) Known as Ruchi Soya 655, 6th Floor, Aayakar Industries Ltd) Bhavan, MK Road, Mumbai 616, Tulsiani Chambers, – 400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai PAN – AAACR2892L (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 1173 & 1174/Mum/2023 A.Ys: 2007-08, 2011-12 Dy. CIT, CC – 7(2) Vs Patanjali Food Ltd 655, 6th Floor, Aayakar (Formerly Known as Ruchi Bhavan, MK Road, Mumbai – Soya Industries Ltd)…

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1173/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

DCIT, C-V, Ludhiana vs. M/S Hero Cycles Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 588/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The DCIT C-V, Ludhiana बनाम M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 473/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana बनाम The ACIT C-V, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Ashish Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…wance to 0.5 per cent of those investment only where "assessee had earned exempt income. [Para 23]" 32. Similar ratio has been laid down in the following cases: i) Special Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of ACIT New Delhi vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd (2017) 165 ITD 27: It is held by the Special Bench of the Tribunal that only those investments are to be considered for computing average value of investment which yielded exempt income during the year. ii) Sajjan India Ltd vs. Additional CIT (2018) 89 Taxmann.com 21 (Mum) Whether only those instruments/securities which yielded exempt income during previous year r…

ACIT Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai vs. Rosy Blue (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 4284/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 14ASection 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘J’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT Central Circle Vs. Rosy Blue (India) 8(3), Mumbai Private Limited 1608-09, Prasad Chambers Tata Road No.2 Opera House, Girgaon S.O. Mumbai- 400 004 PAN/GIR No.AACCR2413B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w. Shri Ashwin Kashinath Revenue by Shri Aditya Rai, SR. DR Date of Hearing 13/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 29/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 28/04/2025…

M/S. Enam Holding Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 27/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. D.R

Section 14ASection 250

…ring the AY under consideration but not the total investments, as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del.) and Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Delhi) (SB). 4. The Ld. D.R. though refuted the claim of the Assessee but not the judgments referred to above. 5. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. (supra) has held clearly that average value of investments for the purposes of rule 8D should be…

Kei Industries Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-14(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1668/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshkei Industries Ltd, Vs. Asst. Cit, D-90, Okhla Industrial Circle-14(2), Area, Phase-1, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaack0251C

For Appellant: Ms. Gargi Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…of clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) of the Act while computing the book profits. This action of the learned AO was upheld by the learned CIT(A). 4. We find that the Special Bench of Delhi tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments reported in 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB) had already held that the computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Income Tax Rules cannot be imputed in clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) of the Act while computing book profits. Hence, no disallowance of expense incurred for earning exempt income could be made by adopting the computation mechanism under Rule 8…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai vs. Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3887/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nSHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that against a similar decision of the Hon'ble Special Bench of the ITAT, Delhi on the issue of disallowance under section 14A in the case of ACIT vs. જે Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. [165 ITD 27 (Del)(SB)], the Department has filed further appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and the matter has not reached finality." 3. The brief facts relevant for adjudication are that the assessee, Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited, earned exempt income aggregating to Rs.20,21,83,391/- during the year under consideration, comprising dividend in…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1) Vadodara, Vadodara vs. M/S. Inox Wind Energy Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 654/AHD/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.654/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner M/S. Inox Wind Energy Of Income Tax, बनाम/ Limited, V/S. Circle-1(1)(1), Abs Tower S. No.1837 & Vadodara. 1834, Op Road, Vadodara-390007. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafc14628K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Dated 27.01.2025, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], On 18.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. Dcit Vs. Inox Wind Energy Limited Assessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…g the disallowance of Rs. 5,32,41,825/- under section 14A. Consequently, the adjustment of the said disallowance to the book profit under section 115JB also does not survive, since the Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT v. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. [2017] 165 ITD 27 (Del)(SB) has categorically held that disallowance computed under section 14A cannot be imported into the computation of book profit under section 115JB. We, therefore, uphold the decision of the CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the Revenue’s ground. 12. The second issue relates to disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 36,24,015 claimed by the asse…

G R N Finsec Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5341/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…lation to adjustment of book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act on account of aforesaid 14A disallowance, no adjustment can be made to book profits and in support, reliance was placed on the Special Bench decision in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. 165 ITD 27. 11. Per contra, the Ld. DR is heard, who has relied on the order passed by the AO as well as that of the Ld.CIT(A). 12. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The limited prayer on behalf of the assessee is that since the assessee has made a suo-moto disallowance of Rs 1,77,078/- under Section 14 r/w Ru…

G R N Finsec Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5329/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara vs. Pawan Edifice Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara

Appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 529/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

…2)(iii) of Rs.1,73,278/- was confirmed. Accordingly, the total disallowance sustained was Rs. 7,81,819/-. 10. On the issue of adjustment to book profit under section 115JB, the CIT(A) followed the Special Bench decision in ACIT v. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. [165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB)] and held that disallowance computed under section 14A could not be added while computing book profit under section 115JB, since there is no specific provision in the Act permitting such an adjustment. The addition under section 115JB was therefore deleted by the CIT(A). Α.Υ. 2014-15 11. The assessee earned exempt income of Rs.49,98,203…

Pawan Edifice Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

ITA 477/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

ITA 48/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Senthil Kumar, Addl. CIT

…sing Officer is directed to disallow under Rule 8D(2)(iii), 0.5% of the investments made in shares which have actually yield the exempt income during the year, following the decision in the of Delhi Special bench in the case of ACIT v Vireet Investment P Ltd, 165 ITD 27 Del (SB). Out of this amount the AO is also directed to exclude a sum of Rs.73,710/- disallowed by the Assessee suo moto and only the balance amount if any should be added. If the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iil) is less than Rs.73,710/- disallowed by the Assessee, then no further disallowance is required to be made. With this direction, a groun…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

ITA 307/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us. Moreover, The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections In Both The

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…r MAT purposes by following the decision of the hon'ble Jaipur bench in the case of assessee itself for preceding assessment years where the hon'ble bench has followed the decision of hon'ble Special bench in the case of Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. reported in 165 ITD 27 (Delhi) andalso by following decisions of Mumbai and Kolkatta high courts. With regard to the Disallowance u/s 14A on other investments made i.e. in the share capital / application made in group companies, it is submitted that assessee company had made investment out of its own funds available in the shape of share capital and reserves and thus t…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

ITA 306/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us. Moreover, The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections In Both The

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…r MAT purposes by following the decision of the hon'ble Jaipur bench in the case of assessee itself for preceding assessment years where the hon'ble bench has followed the decision of hon'ble Special bench in the case of Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. reported in 165 ITD 27 (Delhi) and also by following decisions of Mumbai and Kolkatta high courts. With regard to the Disallowance u/s 14A on other investments made i.e. in the share capital / application made in group companies, it is submitted that assessee company had made investment out of its own funds available in the shape of share capital and reserves and thus…

Didu Investments Private Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2585/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250

…eod Russel India Ltd-vs- ACIT (ITA No. 454/Kol/2022 dated 17-06-2025) DCIT-vs.- Birla Corporation Ltd. (ITA No. 1024/Kol/2023 dated 24-12-2024) Usha Martin Ventures-vs.- DCIT (ITA No. 847/Kol/2013 dated 29-02-2016) ACIT-vs.- Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Delhi-Trib.) (SB) dated 16- 06-2017 Bata India Ltd. -vs- DCIT (2019) 180 ITD 464 (Kol-Trib.) dated 06-09-2019 2.0 Further, the reliance has been placed by the Ld. CIT(A) on following decisions while deciding the above ground against the appellant: DCIT-vs- Viraj Profile Ltd (2015) 64 taxmann.com 52 (Mum Trb) ITO-vs-RBK Shareholding (P) Ltd (2013)…

Alpesh Navinchandra Gosalia, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 27(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4128/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Alpesh Navinchandra Gosalia, Acit, Circle 27(1), G-202, Kukreja Palace, Vallabh, It-Office, Vashi Railway Station Vs. Baug Lane, Rajawadi Building Navi Mumbai-400703. Mumbai-400077. Pan No. Agbpg 9487 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Aditya M. Rai, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Aditya Ramachandran

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 50CSection 57

…assessee submitted that in view of the decision of the Spe for the assessee submitted that in view of the decision of the Spe Bench in the case of Bench in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Vireet Investment (P.) Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415/165 ITD 27 (Delhi [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415/165 ITD 27 (Delhi - Trib.) [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415/165 ITD 27 (Delhi (SB), the average investment should be restricted to the investment the average investment should be restricted to the investment the average investment should be restricted to the investment which had yielded dividend which had yielded dividend…

Manipal Global Education Services Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…re no disallowance can be made. 36. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the explanation of the assessee upholding the disallowance to the normal computation of total income. However, addition to the book profit was deleted on the basis of decision of coordinate Bench in 165 ITD 27. Thus, assessee is in appeal before us. 37. The argument of the assessee is that disallowance has been made without recording a satisfaction by the ld. AO about the correctness of the claim of the assessee that it has not incurred any expenditure for earning exempt income. Before us he referred to plethora of judicial precedents including the dec…