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 371,099 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.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Kingfisher Finvest India Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2477/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 14A

…submitted that the dividend income had not been received from certain investments and hence they should not be considered for computing average value of investments as per the decision rendered by the special bench in the case of Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. 165 ITD 27. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the A.O. has mechanically computed the expenditure disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) without having regard to the actual expenses incurred by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the expenditure relating to exempt income is very less and major portion of the expenses have been incurred by the assessee IT…

Boscj Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1582/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.1556/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. A.R
Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

…ost of the investments made by IT(TP)A No.1556 & ITA No.1582/Bang/2014 M/s. Bosch Ltd., Bangalore Page 9 of 15 the assessee did not yield dividend income and hence, as per the decision rendered by Special bench of ITAT in the case of Vireet Investments P Ltd (165 ITD 27), the investments which did not yield exempt income should not be considered for computing average value of investments. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the assessee gave scientific method of working for arriving at the expenditure relating to exempt income and the same was not examined properly by the tax authorities. He further submitted tha…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 1556/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.1556/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. A.R
Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

…ost of the investments made by IT(TP)A No.1556 & ITA No.1582/Bang/2014 M/s. Bosch Ltd., Bangalore Page 9 of 15 the assessee did not yield dividend income and hence, as per the decision rendered by Special bench of ITAT in the case of Vireet Investments P Ltd (165 ITD 27), the investments which did not yield exempt income should not be considered for computing average value of investments. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the assessee gave scientific method of working for arriving at the expenditure relating to exempt income and the same was not examined properly by the tax authorities. He further submitted tha…

Hind Musafir Agency Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal

ITA 247/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarhind Musafir Agency Ltd. Acit- 2(1)(2) 39Th Floor, Sunshine Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar Road, (West), Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Bominfo@Hmatravel.Com Pan: Aaach1250Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Kirit Kamdar (Ar) Respondent By : Shri R. Bhoopathi (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2020 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessing Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 32

…considered for computing the average value of investment which yielded exempt income during the year. In support of his submissions the ld AR for the assessee rely on the decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in ACIT Vs Vireet Investment Vs ACIT [2017] 165 ITD 27 (Delhi- Trib SB). 13. On the other hand the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of the ld Commissioner (Appeals). 10 Hind Musafir Agency Ltd 14. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and gone through the orders of the tax authorities below. As noted above the ld AR for the assessee have confined his submissions to the e…

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Khoday India Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2085/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri B.R. Baskaranincome Tax Officer, Ward 4(1)(2), Bangalore. ….Appellant Vs. M/S. Khoday India Limited, 7Th Mile, Brewery House, Bangalore-560 062 ……Respondent. Pan Aaack 6734C Assessee By: Shri S.Sundar Rajan, Addl. Cit (D.R) Revenue By: Shri V. Sridhar, C.A.

For Appellant: Shri S.Sundar Rajan, Addl. CIT (D.R)For Respondent: Shri V. Sridhar, C.A
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

…l. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the grounds raised. The learned Authorised Representative, On the other hand, has filed the written submissions and a Paper Book enclosing the case laws relied on, viz. ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB) and ACIT Vs. M N Dastur Company Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 59 CCH 0139 Bang. Trib. 8. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. M N Dastur Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) considered an identical issue in favour of the assessee. In the case of ACIT Vs. M N Dastur Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) t…

Exlservice.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1708/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit(Ltu), Vs. Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Circle-1, Ltd, Nbcc Plaza Pusph Vihar, 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Tower-B, New Delhi Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi Pan: Aaace5174C (Appellant) (Respondent) Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit(Ltu), 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Tower-B, Plot Circle-1, No. 10 & 11, Dda District Nbcc Plaza Pusph Vihar, Centre, Jasola, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaace5174C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…e total income, for the similar reasons, as well as special bench decision in case of the Asst Commissioner of income tax versus Virret investments private limited [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB)/[2017] 58 ITR(T) 313 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB)/[2017] 165 ITD 27 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB)/[2017] 188 TTJ 1 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB), we direct the AO to delete the above addition while calculating the book profit u/s 115JB of the income tax act. 27. Accordingly, ground number 10 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 28. Ground no 11 of the appeal is against the disallowance confirmed by the learned CIT – A u/s 40 (…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1482/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit(Ltu), Vs. Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Circle-1, Ltd, Nbcc Plaza Pusph Vihar, 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Tower-B, New Delhi Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi Pan: Aaace5174C (Appellant) (Respondent) Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit(Ltu), 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Tower-B, Plot Circle-1, No. 10 & 11, Dda District Nbcc Plaza Pusph Vihar, Centre, Jasola, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaace5174C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…e total income, for the similar reasons, as well as special bench decision in case of the Asst Commissioner of income tax versus Virret investments private limited [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB)/[2017] 58 ITR(T) 313 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB)/[2017] 165 ITD 27 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB)/[2017] 188 TTJ 1 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB), we direct the AO to delete the above addition while calculating the book profit u/s 115JB of the income tax act. 27. Accordingly, ground number 10 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 28. Ground no 11 of the appeal is against the disallowance confirmed by the learned CIT – A u/s 40 (…

Mr. Nikhil Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1248/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143

…Most importantly, it is trite law that even in case of ambiguity, the view favourable to the assessee must be adopted as has been held in the following decisions: - CIT V. Vegetable Products: [ 1972] 88 ITR 192 (SC) - ACIT V. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd: [2017] 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB) xviii. Most importantly, the Supreme Court in Karamchand Premchand (supra), apart from deciding the issue on merit in favour of the assessee that loss of Baroda business are allowable since source of income is not outside the purview of taxation, also held the aforesaid principle to be equally applicable in case of ambiguity. The pertin…

Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4637/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Acit-2(3)(1), Vs. M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Room No.552, 5Th Floor 24, Bombay House Aayakar Bhavan Homi Mody Street M.K.Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaact4060A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-58 24, Bombay House 344, Aayakar Bhavan Homi Mody Street M.K.Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaact4060A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…or adjudication. We find that assessee had actually disallowed the sum of Rs.474.19 Crores by identifying the actual expenditure under normal provisions of the Act. We find that the Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments reported in 165 ITD 27 had held that actual expenditure alone should be considered for disallowance in terms of Clause(f) to Explanation 1 to Section 115JB of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the ld. AO to disallow Rs.474.19 Crores u/s.14A while computing book profits u/s.115JB of the Act. Accordingly, the additional ground No.4A raised by the assessee is partly allowed.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Religare Securities Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 574/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…dinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Religare Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No.1549/Del/2014 for A.Y. 2009-10 and various other decisions including the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., 165 ITD 27, he submitted that only investments that have yielded dividend income are to be considered for the purpose of computing average investments and for computing disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. He submitted that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2008-09 has directed the AO to compute disallowance u/s 14A only qua investments which have yie…

M/S. Religare Enterprise Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…dinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Religare Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No.1549/Del/2014 for A.Y. 2009-10 and various other decisions including the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., 165 ITD 27, he submitted that only investments that have yielded dividend income are to be considered for the purpose of computing average investments and for computing disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. He submitted that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2008-09 has directed the AO to compute disallowance u/s 14A only qua investments which have yie…

DCIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 838/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…allenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance to the exempt income. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the ratio of the decision of the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [165 ITD 27] may be followed and only those investments which yielded exempt income may be considered for computing the disallowance. 11. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. In so far as the interest disallowance is concerned we find that the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in th…

Tata Investment Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7405/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golvala &For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh
Section 1Section 115JSection 14ASection 45Section 48

…2014-15. 2. Assessee has raised following common grounds for the A.Y.2013-14 and A.Y. 2014-15: - “1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not following the decision of the Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (165 ITD 27) while computing the addition to be made under Clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2). 2) Without prejudice to Ground No.1 above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the addition made by the appellant in its Return of Income was the correct basis of computing the addition under Clause (f) of Explanatio…

Tata Investment Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. C.I.T. - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7404/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golvala &For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh
Section 1Section 115JSection 14ASection 45Section 48

…2014-15. 2. Assessee has raised following common grounds for the A.Y.2013-14 and A.Y. 2014-15: - “1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not following the decision of the Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (165 ITD 27) while computing the addition to be made under Clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2). 2) Without prejudice to Ground No.1 above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the addition made by the appellant in its Return of Income was the correct basis of computing the addition under Clause (f) of Explanatio…

DCIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 837/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…allenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance to the exempt income. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the ratio of the decision of the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [165 ITD 27] may be followed and only those investments which yielded exempt income may be considered for computing the disallowance. 11. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. In so far as the interest disallowance is concerned we find that the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in th…

Trent Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl. C.I.T.-2(3), Mumbai

ITA 5775/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Trent Ltd., V. Add. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – 2(3) V. M/S. Trent Ltd., Room No. 556, 5Th Floor Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai - 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Trent Ltd., V. Dy. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 35DSection 37(1)

…. This Ground is allowed. 92. Ground No.3 is relating to disallowance u/s. 14A while computing the book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act. This issue is covered by the Delhi Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [165 ITD 27] wherein it has been 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. Thus, the disallowance as computed under Rule 8D cannot be applied while computing the disallowance u/s. 115JB of the Act. Therefore, t…

Anamica Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8203/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10Section 14Section 14ASection 4

…nce Mutual Funds 17,48,611 2. State Bank of India 3,500 3. Reliance Communication Limited 1,875 4. JSW 60 Total 17,54,046/- 15. Referring to the decision of the Delhi (Special Bench) of the Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investment Private Limited reported in 165 ITD 27, he submitted that only those investments can be considered for computing the average value of investment that have yielded exempt income during the year under reference. Therefore, the AO should have considered the opening and closing balance of the investment of only those equity shares and funds that have earned dividend income. He submitted th…

Bahar Agrochem & Feeds Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 63/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.63/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Bahar Agrochem & Feeds P. Ltd. Dcit-14(1)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, (Since Merged With Godrej Agrovet Ltd.) बनाम/ C/O. M/S. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Aaykar Bhavan Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mk Road, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai 400 020. Fort, Mumbai 400 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-2147-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri M.M.Golvala, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…red in applying section 14A read with Rule 8D while computing book profits u/s.115JB. 7. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the ratio of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT v/s. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (165 ITD 27). 8. Without prejudice to all that is stated above, and in any event, the appellant submits that the disallowance u/s.14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed Rs.21,14,836/- in any view of the matter.” During hearing, Ground No.1 has not been urged before us. It is evident that sole issue under appeal is disallowance u/s 14A while computing assessee’s…

Hdfc Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6173/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Hdfc Bank Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Hdfc Bank House, Income Tax – 2(3) Room No.615, 6Th Floor Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 013 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2702H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assistant Commissioner Vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd., Of Income Tax – 2(3) Hdfc Bank House, Room No.615, 6Th Floor Senapati Bapat Marg Aayakar Bhavan Lower Parel, M.K. Road, Mumbai - Mumbai – 400 013 400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2702H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…under third limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules in the light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd., reported in 402 ITR 640 and in the light of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments reported in 165 ITD 27. The ld. DR fairly agreed to this proposition of the ld. AO. 3.7. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd., reported in 402 ITR 640 had held that in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd., bank, investments that are held as ‘stock in trade’ cannot be subject matter of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. The Special Bench of…

Voltas Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6612/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar() & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Voltas Limited Asst. Cit Range-8(3)(2) Voltas House-A, 4Th Floor, Vs. Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai 400 033 Pan No. Aaacv2809D Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-8(3)(2) Voltas Limited R. No.615, 6Th Floor, Vs. Voltas House-A, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Chinchpokli, Mumbai 400 033 Pan No. Aaacv2809 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. Uodal Raj Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…P a g e | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR(VICE PRESIDENT) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Voltas Limited Asst. CIT Range-8(3)(2) Voltas House-A, 4th Floor, Vs. Room No. 615, 6th Floor, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai 400 033 PAN No. AAACV2809D Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT-8(3)(2) Voltas Limited R. No.615, 6th Floor, Vs. Voltas House-A, 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Chinchpokli, Mumbai 400…