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 371,084 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. Brakes India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit-2, Chennai

ITA 1463/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos. 1543, 1544 & 1545/Chny/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…r the purposes of quantifying the average value of investments, only those investments which yielded exempt income alone should be considered is in accordance with the decision of the special bench of the ITAT decision in the case of Vireet Investments P Ltd 165 ITD 27 and hence we direct the AO to recompute the disallowance in accordance with that decision. Therefore, the assessee’s appeals for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 are treated as partly allowed . 15. Thus, the assessee’s appeals for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 are treated as partly allowed . Order pronounced o…

Asst CIT(Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4704/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanaditya Birla Nuvo Limited, A4, Aditya Birla Center, S.K.Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaaci 1747H ...... Appellant Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Ltu-1 World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre -1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005. ..... Respondent Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Ltu-1 World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre -1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005. ..... Appellant

For Appellant: S/Shri Jahangir D. Mistri/For Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 8D(2)

…re - Rs.3,29,10,960/- (iv) Mutual Funds – Birla Sunlife Cash Balance- Rs 19,47,050/- To support his third contention, the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions:- (1) ACIT vs. Vireet Investments Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB) (2) Godrej Agrovat Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No.4375/Mum/2017 decided on 13/03/2019. (3) PCIT vs. Shreno Ltd.(supra) 408 ITR 401 (Guj) The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further submitted that in the immediately preceding assessment year i.e. 2009-10, the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.2525/M/2014 (supra) has res…

M/S. Mysore Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2479/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B. R., C. AFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT DR
Section 14A

…. Regarding disallowance under Rule 8D (2) (iii) out of administrative expenses to the extent of 0.5% of average investments, he placed reliance on the decision of the special bench of the tribunal rendered in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., 165 ITD 27 and submitted that as per this, the disallowance under Rule 8D (2) (iii), only those investments should be considered for considering average value of investment which yielded exempt income during the year. He submitted that to compute the amount of disallowance under Rule 8D (2) (iii), the matter may be restored to AO for fresh decision in the li…

DCIT, CC- 6(3), Mumbai vs. Tatva Global Environment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6914/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Tatva Global Environment Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 6(3) Uniphos House, C.D. Marg Room No. 1926, 19Th Floor 11Th Road, Nr. Madhu Park, Khar(W) Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 052 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaics1718A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Saisudha MultaniFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…he A.Y. 2008-09 when the assessee made investments and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of I.T. Rules keeping in view the decision of the Special Bench in the case of CIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [165 ITD 27] by taking only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year. In so far the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act while computing the book profits is concerned the Ld.CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to compute the disallowance keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Special Bench in the case of CIT v. Vireet Investments Priva…

ACIT-16(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tv18 Broadcast Limited, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4724/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Tv18 Broadcast Limited Circle – 16(1) 414, Empire Complex Room No. 439, Aayakar Bhavan Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaccg3666M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nimesh Vora & Shri Mohit Khandelwal Department By : Shri Maurya Pratap

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora &For Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap
Section 115JSection 14A

…erged with the assessee company i.e. TV18 Broadcast Limited. It is submitted that the Tribunal by order dated 19.06.2019 in ITA.No. 4545/DEL/2015 at Para 19 following the decision of the Special Bench in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [165 ITD 27] held that only those investments which yielded dividend income should be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D (2)(iii) of I.T. Rules. 4. Ld. DR supported the orders of the Authorities below. 5. On a perusal of the Ld. CIT(A) order, we observe that the Ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under clause (iii…

The JCIT(OSD), Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Adani Logistics Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1608/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Satish Solanki, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Varthik Chokshi & Biren V. Shah
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35D

…de by the Assessing Officer while computing book profit except such which may be permissible under the explanation of Section 115JB. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the decision of Special Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments P.Ltd., 165 ITD 27 (SB). He therefore supported the order passed by the First Appellate Authority. 16. On the other hand, the Learned DR relied upon the order passed by the Learned AO. 17. Heard the parties, perused the relevant materials available on records including the order passed by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments…

Apollo International Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6088/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Sushma Chowla & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo International Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 303, Dlf Court Yard, Circle-3(1), Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan: Aaaca6447N Assessee By : Shri Manu K. Giri, Advocate Deptt. By : Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. Dr (Appellants) (Respondents) Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St August, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-1, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Disallowing An Amount Of Rs.37,32,000/- Under Section 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D Of The Income- Tax.” 3. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Export Of Tyres, Tubes, Flaps, Leather Garments & Leather Accessories, Etc. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2013 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.9,47,07,931/-. The Ao In The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Made Disallowance Of Rs.37,32,000/- On The Ground That The Assessee Has Suo Motu Disallowed A Sum Of Rs.8,17,000/- Only As Against The Disallowance As Per Section 14A Of The Act R.W. Rule 8D Of The Income-Tax Rules, 1962 Which Comes To Rs.45,49,000/-.

For Appellant: Shri Manu K. Giri, Advocate
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo International Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 303, DLF Court Yard, Circle-3(1), Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi PAN: AAACA6447N Assessee by : Shri Manu K. Giri, Advocate Deptt. By : Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR (Appellants) (Respondents) Date of Hearing : 28.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2020 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 1st August, 2017 of the CIT(A)-1, New Delhi, relating to assessm…

M/S Hydroline Products Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2217/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Assessment Year : 2015 – 16 M/S Hydroline Products Pvt. Ltd., No. 3/1, Varsova Layout, Acit Circle – 3 (1) (2), C. V. Raman Nagar, Vs. Bangalore Bangalore – 560093. Pan: Aaach9129E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri A. S. Narayan Moorthy, C. A. Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2020 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri A. S. Narayan Moorthy, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT DR
Section 14A

…same, on investment of Rs. 101,79,087/- only in three Mutual Funds, dividend of Rs. 869,173/- was earned in the present year. He submitted that as per the order of the special bench of the tribunal rendered in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., 165 ITD 27, only those investments should be considered for computing average value of investments which yielded exempt dividend income in the year under consideration. He submitted that therefore, 0.5% of only Rs. 101,79,087/- should be disallowed and it works out to Rs. 50,895/- ITA Nos.2217(B)/2018 Page 2 of 2 out of which, Rs. 17,383/- is already disall…

M/S. Harita Seating Systems Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 2745/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2745/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Harita Seating Systems Limited, No. 29, Jayalakshmi Income Tax, Estates, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaach2492N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 02.01.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2020

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234A

…ider 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 case law filed by the assessee in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Delhi)(SB). Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. The next ground relates to confirmation of levy of interest under section 234A of the Act amounting to ₹.4,02,362/-. Against the levy of interest under section 234A of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) has not given any specific findings, instead, he held th…

Rehab Housing P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 4956/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatharehab Housing Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit,Cc-2(3) Room No.803, 8Th Floor Gitaneel Arcade 5Th Floor,85, Old Cgo Building Hill Road, Bandra(W) Pratishta Bhawan Mumbai-400 050 M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234C

…on of average value of investments, only those investments, which yield exempt income needs to be considered. We further noted that this proposition is further supported by the decision of ITAT Special bench in the case of ACIT vs Vireet investments Pvt.Ltd. (165 ITD 27). Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Ld. AO, as well as the Ld.CIT(A) were erred in determining disallowances of expenditure incurred, in relation to exempt income u/s 14A r.w..Rule 8D(2)(iii) by taking into 5 Rehab Housing Pvt.Ltd. account total investments, including investments, which do not yield exempt income for the year. Henc…

ACIT - 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Century Appliances P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 6460/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Acit – 3(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Century Appliances Room No.607, 6Th Floor Pvt. Ltd Aayakar Bhavan 171-C, Mittal Court, Mumbai – 400 020 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr8636G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…s.115JB of the Act in the return of income. The ld. AO had substituted this disallowance figure by adopting the computation mechanism under rule 8D(2) of the rules. We find that the Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments reported in 165 ITD 27 had held that the computation mechanism provided under rule 8D of the rules cannot be imputed in clause (f) of Explanation to 115JB(2) of the Act. However, the actual expenses debited the profit and loss account for the purpose of earning exempt income should be disallowed and in the 4 M/s. Century Appliances P. Ltd instant case we find that the…

Reliance Capital Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 181/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.Y : 2015-16 : Reliance Capital Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle – 3(3)(1), 6Th Floor, North Wing, Mumbai. (Respondent) Reliance Centre, Off Western Express Highway, Santa Cruz (E), Mumbai 400 055. Pan : Aaacr5054J (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…d income during the year should be considered for computing the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act. In this regard, he relied on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd., [2017] 165 ITD 27 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB). 3 Reliance Capital Ltd. 4. When this fact was confronted to the learned Senior DR, Shri K. Madhusudan, he fairly agreed that the Assessing Officer can be directed that only those investments which yielded dividend income during the year should be considered for computing disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income un…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5525/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 5491 & 5492/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 ACIT, Vs. M/s. NIIT Technologies Ltd., Circle-13(1), 8, Balaji Estate, 1st Floor, New Delhi Guru Ravi Das Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi PAN :AAACN0332P (Appellant) (Respondent) And ITA No.5524 & 5525/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s. NIIT Technologies Ltd., Vs. ACIT, 8, Balaji Estate, 1st Floor, Circle-13(1), Guru Ravi Das Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAACN0332P (Appellant) (Resp…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5524/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 5491 & 5492/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 ACIT, Vs. M/s. NIIT Technologies Ltd., Circle-13(1), 8, Balaji Estate, 1st Floor, New Delhi Guru Ravi Das Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi PAN :AAACN0332P (Appellant) (Respondent) And ITA No.5524 & 5525/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s. NIIT Technologies Ltd., Vs. ACIT, 8, Balaji Estate, 1st Floor, Circle-13(1), Guru Ravi Das Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAACN0332P (Appellant) (Resp…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5492/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 5491 & 5492/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 ACIT, Vs. M/s. NIIT Technologies Ltd., Circle-13(1), 8, Balaji Estate, 1st Floor, New Delhi Guru Ravi Das Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi PAN :AAACN0332P (Appellant) (Respondent) And ITA No.5524 & 5525/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s. NIIT Technologies Ltd., Vs. ACIT, 8, Balaji Estate, 1st Floor, Circle-13(1), Guru Ravi Das Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAACN0332P (Appellant) (Resp…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5491/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 5491 & 5492/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 ACIT, Vs. M/s. NIIT Technologies Ltd., Circle-13(1), 8, Balaji Estate, 1st Floor, New Delhi Guru Ravi Das Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi PAN :AAACN0332P (Appellant) (Respondent) And ITA No.5524 & 5525/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s. NIIT Technologies Ltd., Vs. ACIT, 8, Balaji Estate, 1st Floor, Circle-13(1), Guru Ravi Das Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAACN0332P (Appellant) (Resp…

Bharat Forge Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

ITA 1229/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…ant paras. He thereafter submitted that since the facts of the case of the year under consideration are similar to A.Y. 2012- 13, therefore following the order of A.Y. 2012-13 and following the decision of Special Bench in the case of Vireet Invests. P. Ltd. [165 ITD 27 (Del)(SB)], the disallowance u/s 14A be worked out by considering the investments from which the assessee has earned exempt income. He further submitted that if while computing the disallowance u/s 14A in line with the decision of Vireej Invests P. Ltd. (supra), the disallowance goes below the suo motu disallowance worked out by assessee, then ass…

DCIT Cir 7(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1832/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathapiramal Enterprise Limited Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-7(3) (Formerly Known As Piramal Aaykar Bhawan Healthcare Limited) M.K.Road Piramal Tower Mumbai-400 020 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Piramal Enterprise Limited Vs. Addl.CIT, Range-7(3) (formerly known as Piramal Aaykar Bhawan Healthcare Limited) M.K.Road Piramal Tower Mumbai-400 020 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013 PAN/GIR No.AAACN4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & DCIT,Circle-7(3)(2) Vs. Piramal Enterprise Limited 622, (formerly known as Piramal Aaykar Bhawan Healthcare Limited) M.K.Road Piramal Tower Mumbai-400 020 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013 PAN/GIR No.AAACN4538P (…

Essar Ports Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1831/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Essar Ports Ltd. Dcit, 5(1)(2) (Formerly Known As Essar Shipping Ports & Logistics Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, 11, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 034

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, cit D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 14ASection 92C

…resentatives for both the parties in respect of the aforesaid issue and find that the same is clearly covered by the order of the „Special Bench‟ of the ITAT, Delhi Bench “H” in the case of ACIT, Circle 17(1) New Delhi, Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB). In the aforesaid case, we find, that the Tribunal had held that the computation under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Sec.115JB(2) is to be made without resorting to the computation contemplated under Sec.14A r.w. Rule 8D. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the lower authorities had erred in concluding that the disallowance…

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5678/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Sushma Chowla & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Vs. Anant Raj Ltd., Circle-2(2), E-2, Ara Centre, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. Pan: Aabca3972B Assessee By : Ms Sweeti Khotari, Advocate Deptt. By : Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. Dr (Appellants) (Respondents) Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5Th June, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-1, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Ms Sweeti Khotari, Advocate
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 ACIT, Vs. Anant Raj Ltd., Circle-2(2), E-2, ARA Centre, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. PAN: AABCA3972B Assessee by : Ms Sweeti Khotari, Advocate Deptt. By : Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR (Appellants) (Respondents) Date of Hearing : 28.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 5th June, 2017 of the CIT(A)-1, New Delhi, relating to assessment year…