ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.

Tml Drivelines Limited ( Since Merged With Tata Motors Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Ltu) 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Tata Motors Ltd., Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of (Successor To Tml Drivelines Income Tax-2(1) Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan 1St Floor, Bombay House Mumbai – 400 020 24, Homi Mody Street Hutatma Chowk Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aaach7625P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Tata Motors Ltd., Income Tax (Ltu-2) (Successor To Tml Drivelines 29Th Floor, Center-1, Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Tata Motors, World Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Nanavati Mahalaya, 18 Homi Mody Street Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aaach7625P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…provisions of the Act amounting to Rs.12,55,853/- was considered verbatim for disallowance while computing the book profits u/s.115JB of the Act also by the ld. AO. We find that the Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments reported in 165 ITD 27 had already held that the computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules cannot be applied for the purpose of disallowance of expenses under Clause ‘f’ of Explanation to Section 115JB (2) of the Act. However, certain expenses need to be disallowed as per Clause ‘f’ of Explanation to Section 115JB (2) of the Act. Hence, we hold that the…

Shahrukh Khan, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(2), Central Range-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Justice P P Bhatt & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

…making this disallowance did not even reduce amount already disallowed by the assessee in the sum of Rs.60,000/-. 4.2. The ld. CIT(A) by following the decision of Special Bench decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments vs. ACIT reported in 165 ITD 27 directed the ld. AO to recomputed the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules by considering only those investments which had actually yielded exempt income and from such arrived figure allow set off of Rs.50,000 suomoto disallowance already made by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by this action, the assessee is in appeal before…

Baroda Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle 3 (1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Baroda Industries Pvt. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax- Circle – 2Nd Floor, Bajaj Bhavan 3(1)(1), Mumbai 226, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb2428A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…ed by the assessee is incorrect and also had applied the computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules by considering all the investments. We find that the special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments vs. ACIT reported in 165 ITD 27 categorically held that only those investments which had actually yielded exempt income should be considered for the purpose of working out the disallowance under third limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. We find that the assessee had furnished the workings for the same on without prejudice basis in page 7 of the paper book. The ld. AO is directed to…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-14 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Godrej Properties Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Godrej Properties Income Tax, Circle-14(1)(2) Limited Mumbai Ground Floor Room No.475, 4Th Floor Phirojshanagar, Aayakar Bhavan Eastern Express Highway, M.K.Road, Vikhroli East Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 079 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg3995M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Godrej Properties Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Limited Tax, Circle-14(1)(1) Esplande House Mumbai 2Nd Floor Room No.404, 4Th Floor 29, Hazarimal Somani Aayakar Bhavan Marg, Fort, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg3995M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By Shri V. Vinodkumar Assessee By Shri Farooq V. Irani Date Of Hearing 29/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 M/S. Godrej Properties Ltd.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT), ‘G‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM Dy. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Godrej Properties Income Tax, Circle-14(1)(2) Limited Mumbai Ground Floor Room No.475, 4th Floor Phirojshanagar, Aayakar Bhavan Eastern Express Highway, M.K.Road, Vikhroli East Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 079 PAN/GIR No. AAACG3995M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/s. Godrej Properties Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Limited Tax, Circle-14(1)(1) Esplande House Mumbai 2nd Floor Room No.404, 4th Floor 29, Hazarimal Somani Aayakar Bhavan Marg, Fort, M.K.Road, Mumbai…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Citicorp Finance (I) Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd., Circle - 14(1)(2) 5Th Floor, Plot C-61 Room No. 475, 4Th Floor Bandra Kurla Complex, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 079 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabca3223B (Appellant) (Respondent) Co.No. 172/Mum/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 4471/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2012-13)] M/S. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd., V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 5Th Floor, Plot C-61 Circle - 14(1)(2), Bandra Kurla Complex, G-Block Room No. 475, 4Th Floor Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 079 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabca3223B (Appellant) (Respondent)

…on this issue are dismissed. 5. In so far as, disallowance u/s. 14A while computing book profits u/s.115JB of the Act is concerned, Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of Hon'ble Special Bench of Delhi in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [165 ITD 27] deleted the disallowance. The Hon'ble Special Bench of Delhi in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited (supra) held that the computation under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the I.T Rules, 1962. Therefore, respectfully foll…

Ameya Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Uran vs. DCIT Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodameya Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle 2(1)(1), Village- Dhasakoshi, R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Post- Khoproli, Kopte, Aayakar Bhavan, Taluka-Uran, District – Raigad M.K. Road, Vs. 410 212 Mumbai – 400 020

…ITA No.1885/Mum/2019 A.Y.2015-16 1 ITA No.2044/Mum/2019 , A.Y. 2015-16 Ameya Logistics Pvt. ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ameya Logistics Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Village- Dhasakoshi, R. No. 561, 5th Floor, Post- Khoproli, Kopte, Aayakar Bhavan, Taluka-Uran, District – Raigad M.K. Road, Vs. 410 212 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN – AAECA4562C Appellant Respondent ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), M/s Ameya Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 561, 5th Floor, 4th Floor, Hamilton House, B.J.N. Aay…

Mirah Hospitality & Food Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai

Bench: The Itat In These Cases Against A Common Order Of Learned Cit(A) For A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dated 28.5.2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of “Hotels & Resorts”, Filed The Return Of Income For The Ay 2009-2010 Declaring The Total Loss Of Rs.43,15,534/- After Set Off Of Ltcg Of Rs. 1,31,36,082/-. Assessee Is A Group Concern Of M/S. Twinkle Group. There Was A Search & Seizure Action On The Said M/S. Twinkle Group U/S 132 Of The Act. Accordingly, In Response To The Notice U/S 153A Of The Act, Assessee Filed The Return Of Income Declaring The Same Total Loss (Rs. (-) 43,15,334/-). Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A Of The Act Determining The Total Loss Of Rs. 3,82,977/- Which Include Certain Disallowances & Rs. 27,68,422/- Is One

…stment should be considered which have yield exempt income. We find that though this issue is not the subject matter of remanded by the ITAT, the same is covered in favour of the assessee by the Special bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments (165 ITD 27)(SB-Del). 15. Now we deal with the additional ground raised by the assessee that no adjustment can be done u/s. 115JB with regard to section 14A disallowance. 16. For this proposition learned Counsel of the assessee has placed reliance upon catena of decisions as referred above. We find that the additional ground is a legal ground and goes to th…