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 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 J V Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2780/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri G Sitharaman, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Renuga, J.C.I.T (DR)
Section 14Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2014-15 J.V Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, 1st Floor, Ward-4(1)(1), Embassy Point, 150 Infantry Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 001. PAN – AABCJ 9763 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri G Sitharaman, C.A Respondent by : Smt. Renuga, J.C.I.T (DR) Date of hearing : 27.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2019 O R D E R Per B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the…

Rajkumar Devansh (HUF), Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT RG-12(2), (Now Assessed With ACIT-17(2)), Mumbai

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

ITA 700/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Jothilakshmi Nayak
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…e submitted that for the purpose of computing average value of investments only those investments which yield dividend income should be considered in view of the decision of the Special Bench of Delhi in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [165 ITD 27]. It is also submitted that Ld. CIT(A) held that even the investments sold should be considered in arriving at average value of investments when it is not specified in the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of I.T. Rules. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 8. On hearing both the sides, we are of the v…

Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3786/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla &For Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234DSection 37(1)

…and recompute the disallowance in accordance with the directions therein. We also direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance keeping in view the decision of the special bench of Delhi in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [165 ITD 27]. This ground is allowed for statistical purpose. 16. Ground No.4 of grounds of appeal is relating to disallowance of lease equalization charges. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y.2004-05 to 2007-08 by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer allowed…

Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3785/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla &For Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234DSection 37(1)

…and recompute the disallowance in accordance with the directions therein. We also direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance keeping in view the decision of the special bench of Delhi in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [165 ITD 27]. This ground is allowed for statistical purpose. 16. Ground No.4 of grounds of appeal is relating to disallowance of lease equalization charges. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y.2004-05 to 2007-08 by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer allowed…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3700/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla &For Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234DSection 37(1)

…and recompute the disallowance in accordance with the directions therein. We also direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance keeping in view the decision of the special bench of Delhi in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [165 ITD 27]. This ground is allowed for statistical purpose. 16. Ground No.4 of grounds of appeal is relating to disallowance of lease equalization charges. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y.2004-05 to 2007-08 by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer allowed…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3699/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla &For Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234DSection 37(1)

…and recompute the disallowance in accordance with the directions therein. We also direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance keeping in view the decision of the special bench of Delhi in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [165 ITD 27]. This ground is allowed for statistical purpose. 16. Ground No.4 of grounds of appeal is relating to disallowance of lease equalization charges. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y.2004-05 to 2007-08 by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer allowed…

Unipres India Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 3 (2), Chennai

ITA 1851/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Respondent: 30.09.2019
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 253(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी र!मत कोचर, लेखा सद"य के सम& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "नधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2014-15 v. M/s.Unipres India Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, RNS-6, SIPCOT Industrial Growth Corporate Ward-3(2), Centre, Oragadam, Nungambakkam, Vadakupattu Post, Chennai-600 034. Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu-603 204. [PAN: AAACU 9830 B] (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,यथ*/Respondent) : Mr. SP.Chidambaram, अपीलाथ* क-…

M/S. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 3796/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Range-15, 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Circle 21(1), Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd April, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-11, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.3796/Del/2015 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 138

…ssee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 37. The ld. counsel for the assessee strongly objected to the order of the CIT(A). The ld. counsel submitted that the Special Bench, Delhi, of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vereet Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 165 ITD 27, has 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 Income-tax Rules, 1962. He accordingly submitted that this issue being a covered matter in favour of the assessee, the grounds raised by the assessee should be allowed.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 4574/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Range-15, 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Circle 21(1), Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd April, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-11, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.3796/Del/2015 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 138

…ssee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 37. The ld. counsel for the assessee strongly objected to the order of the CIT(A). The ld. counsel submitted that the Special Bench, Delhi, of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vereet Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 165 ITD 27, has 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 Income-tax Rules, 1962. He accordingly submitted that this issue being a covered matter in favour of the assessee, the grounds raised by the assessee should be allowed.…

ACIT - Circle- 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. Esjay International Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5776/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Esjay International Income Tax Pvt. Ltd., Gala No.48, 4Th Floor Cir 6(2)(1) Mumbai Laxmi Industrial Estate Room No.504, 5Th Floor Hanuman Gally, Aayakar Bhavan Lower Parel M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaace1066B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…in this regard. 3.1. With regard to disallowance of indirect expenses under third limb of Rule 8D(2) of the rules, we find that the ld. CIT(A) had considered the decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investment (P) Ltd reported in 165 ITD 27 wherein it was held that only those investments which had yielded dividend income should be considered for the purpose of disallowance under Rule 8D. The ld. CIT(A) 3 M/s. Esjay International P. Ltd., observed that if such ratio is applied, the disallowance would work out only to Rs.7,83,598/- whereas the assessee itself had made suomoto disallo…

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue for the A

ITA 1839/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Ramlal Negi

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAMLAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1839 & 1840/Mum/2018 A.Ys : 2013-14 & 2014-15) & CO Nos. 82 & 83/Mum/2019 A.Ys : 2013-14 & 2014-15) बनाम/ DCIT – 14(3)(1) Reliance 455 Aayakar Bhavan, Infrastructure Ltd, Vs. M.K. Marg, Reliance Centre, Mumbai – 400020 Santa Cruze, Mumbai – 400055. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AACCR7446Q Appellant / Respondent .. Appellant / Respondent) अऩीराथी ओय से / Appellant Shri Lakshmi V. Prasad, CIT DR by : प्रत्मथी की ओय Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, AR से/Respondent by…

Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result , both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3192/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Vs. Acit 2(3), Room No.552 Bombay House, Homi Mody Aayakar Bhavan Street, Mumbai – 400001 M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaact4060A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Acit 2(3), Room No.552 Vs. M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Bombay House, Homi Mody M.K.Road Street, Mumbai – 400001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaact4060A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 57

…e find that this is a legal issue and goes into the root of the matter and does not involve any verification of facts and hence the same is admitted herein. We find that the Hon‟ble Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments reported in 165 ITD 27 had categorically held that the 9 M/s. Tata Sons Ltd computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules cannot be imputed in clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2) of the Act. We find that the Special Bench further held that only the actual expenses debited to the profit and loss account that are relatable to earning of exempt inc…

Vepar Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 336/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Uma Prasad, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 14A

…for the purposes of Section 14A was imported to special provisions of Section 115JB of the Act for adjustment of book profits. We find that the issue is no longer res integra identical issue came up before the Special bench in ACIT vs. Vireet Investments Ltd. 165 ITD 27 (SB). In the light of the decision of Special bench, we find merit in the plea of the assessee. The AO is accordingly directed to delete adjustments made to the book profit on this score. 6. In parity, the issue requires to be decided in favour of the assessee. The adjustment made by the Revenue authorities in the book profit towards disallowance…

M/S. Kpit Technologies Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1272/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1271 & 1272/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…imited and others (2015) 94 CCH 0335 DEL-HC has held that no disallowance can be made u/s.14A in computation of income u/s.115JB of the Act. Similar view has been reiterated by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB). We, therefore, hold that neither the disallowance can be made u/s.14A nor any addition on this score can be made in the computation of income u/s.115JB of the Act. These grounds are, therefore, allowed. 6. The only other issue which survives in this appeal is against the confirmation of disallowance of weighted deduction of Rs.71,…

M/S. Kpit Technologies Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1271/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1271 & 1272/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…imited and others (2015) 94 CCH 0335 DEL-HC has held that no disallowance can be made u/s.14A in computation of income u/s.115JB of the Act. Similar view has been reiterated by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB). We, therefore, hold that neither the disallowance can be made u/s.14A nor any addition on this score can be made in the computation of income u/s.115JB of the Act. These grounds are, therefore, allowed. 6. The only other issue which survives in this appeal is against the confirmation of disallowance of weighted deduction of Rs.71,…

Manoj Vasudev Wadhwa, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-37, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 359/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito-13(3)(3), Room No. Manoj Vashudevwadhwa, 227, 2Nd Floor, Vs. 11, Happy Home, 244, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Waterfield Road, Bandra Mumbai-400020. West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aalpw0303K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Manoj Vashudevwadhwa, Acit Cc 37 11, Happy Home, 244, Vs. Aayakarbahvan, Mumbai. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aalpw0303K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms.JothilakshmiNayak, DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…t yielded dividend income may be excluded from the investments for computation of average value of investments for the purposes of Rule 8D. Manoj Vashudev Wadhwa In this regard, reliance is placed by him on the decision in ACIT v. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB). Another limb of the alternate submission made by the Ld. counsel is that stock-in-trade may be excluded from the investments for computation of average value of investments for the purpose of Rule 8D. In this regard, reliance is placed by him on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Nice Bombay Transport (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT, order dat…

Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Manoj Vasudev Wadhwa, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 326/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito-13(3)(3), Room No. Manoj Vashudevwadhwa, 227, 2Nd Floor, Vs. 11, Happy Home, 244, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Waterfield Road, Bandra Mumbai-400020. West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aalpw0303K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Manoj Vashudevwadhwa, Acit Cc 37 11, Happy Home, 244, Vs. Aayakarbahvan, Mumbai. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aalpw0303K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms.JothilakshmiNayak, DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…t yielded dividend income may be excluded from the investments for computation of average value of investments for the purposes of Rule 8D. Manoj Vashudev Wadhwa In this regard, reliance is placed by him on the decision in ACIT v. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB). Another limb of the alternate submission made by the Ld. counsel is that stock-in-trade may be excluded from the investments for computation of average value of investments for the purpose of Rule 8D. In this regard, reliance is placed by him on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Nice Bombay Transport (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT, order dat…

Si Group India Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3431/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Si Group India Limited Large Taxpayer Unit – 2 Plot No: D-2/I, Ttc Industrial Area World Trade Centre Thane – Belapur Road Centre 1, 29Th Floor, Cuffe Parade Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Mumbai – 400 005 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaach7323L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Si Group India Limited V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Large Taxpayer Unit Plot No: D-2/I, Ttc Industrial Area Mumbai Thane – Belapur Road Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaach7323L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Department By : Shri Vivek A. Perampura

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain &For Respondent: Shri Vivek A. Perampura
Section 92C

…ppeal is in respect of disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D while computing the book profits u/s.115JB of the Act. 32. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of the 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) 30 ITA NO.3431 & 3306/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2008-09) M/s. SI Group India Limited 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, respectfully following the above decision, we direct th…

DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. S I Group India Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3306/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Si Group India Limited Large Taxpayer Unit – 2 Plot No: D-2/I, Ttc Industrial Area World Trade Centre Thane – Belapur Road Centre 1, 29Th Floor, Cuffe Parade Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Mumbai – 400 005 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaach7323L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Si Group India Limited V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Large Taxpayer Unit Plot No: D-2/I, Ttc Industrial Area Mumbai Thane – Belapur Road Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaach7323L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Department By : Shri Vivek A. Perampura

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain &For Respondent: Shri Vivek A. Perampura
Section 92C

…ppeal is in respect of disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D while computing the book profits u/s.115JB of the Act. 32. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of the 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) 30 ITA NO.3431 & 3306/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2008-09) M/s. SI Group India Limited 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, respectfully following the above decision, we direct th…

Moly Metal Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly Electro Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1729/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR
Section 10(34)Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 250

…8 Asstt. Year 2013-14 assessee is that the investments which have yielded the dividend income should only be considered for the purpose of the disallowance. In this regard we note that the ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. reported in 165 ITD 27 has held as under: “11.17 As far as argument relating to meaning to be ascribed to the phrase 'shall not' used in Rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned, the Revenue's contention is that it refers to those investments which did not yield any exempt income during the year but if income would have been yielded it would have remain exempt. There is no dispute…