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.

Adhiraj Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2919/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Adhiraj Constructions Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1) 303, Sharda Chambers Mumbai Sir V.T Marg Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aacca3372Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, we hold that only dividend bearing investments should be considered by the ld AO for disallowance under third limb of Rule 8D(2) in the light of decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments reported in 165 ITD 27 (Del )(SB). We find from the Investments Schedule reflected in the balance sheet as on 31.3.2014, the assessee had received dividend only from investments in 9% Non-cumulative redeemable preference shares of Chandan Steel Limited to the tune of Rs 2 crores. Hence 0.5% of such investment would work out to Rs 10,000/- only , whereas the assessee its…

DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 468/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…A) who was pleased to delete disallowance of expenses made u/s.14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules for computing book profits u/s 115JB of the 1961 Act by following Special Bench decision of Delhi-tribunal in the case of M/s. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. 165 ITD 27(Del-trib. SB). So far as additions made u/s 14A of the 1961 Act read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules for computing income are concerned, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the additions vide appellate order dated 30.11.2017 by holding as under: “4.3 I have considered the findings of the AO and the written submissions made by the AR. The very same issue was c…

DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 467/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…A) who was pleased to delete disallowance of expenses made u/s.14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules for computing book profits u/s 115JB of the 1961 Act by following Special Bench decision of Delhi-tribunal in the case of M/s. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. 165 ITD 27(Del-trib. SB). So far as additions made u/s 14A of the 1961 Act read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules for computing income are concerned, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the additions vide appellate order dated 30.11.2017 by holding as under: “4.3 I have considered the findings of the AO and the written submissions made by the AR. The very same issue was c…

DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 466/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…A) who was pleased to delete disallowance of expenses made u/s.14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules for computing book profits u/s 115JB of the 1961 Act by following Special Bench decision of Delhi-tribunal in the case of M/s. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. 165 ITD 27(Del-trib. SB). So far as additions made u/s 14A of the 1961 Act read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules for computing income are concerned, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the additions vide appellate order dated 30.11.2017 by holding as under: “4.3 I have considered the findings of the AO and the written submissions made by the AR. The very same issue was c…

DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 465/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…A) who was pleased to delete disallowance of expenses made u/s.14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules for computing book profits u/s 115JB of the 1961 Act by following Special Bench decision of Delhi-tribunal in the case of M/s. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. 165 ITD 27(Del-trib. SB). So far as additions made u/s 14A of the 1961 Act read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules for computing income are concerned, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the additions vide appellate order dated 30.11.2017 by holding as under: “4.3 I have considered the findings of the AO and the written submissions made by the AR. The very same issue was c…

M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 422/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…A) who was pleased to delete disallowance of expenses made u/s.14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules for computing book profits u/s 115JB of the 1961 Act by following Special Bench decision of Delhi-tribunal in the case of M/s. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. 165 ITD 27(Del-trib. SB). So far as additions made u/s 14A of the 1961 Act read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules for computing income are concerned, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the additions vide appellate order dated 30.11.2017 by holding as under: “4.3 I have considered the findings of the AO and the written submissions made by the AR. The very same issue was c…

M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 421/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…A) who was pleased to delete disallowance of expenses made u/s.14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules for computing book profits u/s 115JB of the 1961 Act by following Special Bench decision of Delhi-tribunal in the case of M/s. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. 165 ITD 27(Del-trib. SB). So far as additions made u/s 14A of the 1961 Act read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules for computing income are concerned, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the additions vide appellate order dated 30.11.2017 by holding as under: “4.3 I have considered the findings of the AO and the written submissions made by the AR. The very same issue was c…

M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 420/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…A) who was pleased to delete disallowance of expenses made u/s.14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules for computing book profits u/s 115JB of the 1961 Act by following Special Bench decision of Delhi-tribunal in the case of M/s. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. 165 ITD 27(Del-trib. SB). So far as additions made u/s 14A of the 1961 Act read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules for computing income are concerned, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the additions vide appellate order dated 30.11.2017 by holding as under: “4.3 I have considered the findings of the AO and the written submissions made by the AR. The very same issue was c…

M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 419/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…A) who was pleased to delete disallowance of expenses made u/s.14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules for computing book profits u/s 115JB of the 1961 Act by following Special Bench decision of Delhi-tribunal in the case of M/s. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. 165 ITD 27(Del-trib. SB). So far as additions made u/s 14A of the 1961 Act read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules for computing income are concerned, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the additions vide appellate order dated 30.11.2017 by holding as under: “4.3 I have considered the findings of the AO and the written submissions made by the AR. The very same issue was c…

Reliance Life Sciences P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

ITA 3883/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble&

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…calculation of average value of investments. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. M/s. Ballarpur Industries Limited in ITA.No. 51 of 2016 dated 13.10.2016 and ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [165 ITD 27]. He also further submitted that investments in Foreign Companies income from which is taxable should not be considered for average value of 5 ITA.No. 3883/Mum/2016 (A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., investments. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co…

Reliance Life Scinces P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

ITA 2301/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble&

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…calculation of average value of investments. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. M/s. Ballarpur Industries Limited in ITA.No. 51 of 2016 dated 13.10.2016 and ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [165 ITD 27]. He also further submitted that investments in Foreign Companies income from which is taxable should not be considered for average value of 5 ITA.No. 3883/Mum/2016 (A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., investments. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co…

Dhruvi Securities Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1904/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…the amount of exempt income. On the second limb of argument that only investments which yielded exempt income should alone be considered, in the light of the decision of the Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet investment Pvt. Ltd. & anr (165 ITD 27) (SB), the contention of the assessee is accepted. Accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the AO for disallowance u/s 14A by restricting the amount of disallowance to the lower of exempt income or amount arrived at by prescribed formula under rule 8D clause (iii) by taking into only those investments which yielded exempt income.” By…

M/S. Suprajit Engineering Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 2611/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…No.569/2015 & ITA No.229/2016 dated 15.06.2018 and plea in respect of disallowance to be made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is supported by the decision rendered by Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd (2017)(82 taxmann.com 415)(165 ITD 27). Accordingly we set aside the order passed by the AO on this issue and restore the same to his file with the direction to modify the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act by following the above said two decisions. IT(TP)A No.2611/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 6 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. Order pronounced in the Open…

Gujarat Power Corporation Limited-Gpcl, Ahmedabad vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1497/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Smt. Aparna AgarwalFor Respondent: CIT.D.R
Section 14ASection 263

…hich is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In this regard as pointed out on behalf of the assessee that the corresponding adjustment under s.115JB is not permissible in view of the decision of the Special bench in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. 165 ITD 27 (Delhi)(SB). With the assistance of the learned senior counsel of the assessee, we also find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Alembic Ltd. Tax Appeal No. 1249 of 2014 (Guj) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Pr.CIT VS. Gujarat Floro Chemicals Ltd…

Kotak Mhindra Asset Management Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD) 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3424/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blem/S. Kotak Mahindra Asset V. Asst. Cit Management Company. Ltd., Range – 14(2)(1) 27 Bkc, G. Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai -400 020 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 51 Pan: Aaack5576C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vispi T. Patel Department By : Shri D.G. Pansari

For Appellant: Shri Vispi T. PatelFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari
Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 14A(2)Section 4Section 8D

…rative expenses to be disallowed under Rule 8D (2)(iii) of I.T. Rules, only those investments are to be considered which yielded exempt income. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Special Bench in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [165 ITD 27] and the Coordinate Bench decision in the case of Revashankar Gems Limited v. DCIT in ITA.No. 1046/Mum/2016 dated 05.02.2018. 6. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the Assessment Order we find that the Assessing Offic…

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 805/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 14ASection 35

…le 8D, the Assessing Officer has considered all investments, irrespective of the fact whether the assessee has earned dividend income on the said investments or not. The Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. reported as 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB) has held that while computing disallowance u/s. 14A only those investments should be taken into consideration on which the assessee has earned dividend income exempt from tax. Similar view has been taken by the Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Quick Heal Technologies Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.1500 & 1710/PUN/2017 for assessment…

M.Pallonji Logistics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1904/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd Income Tax, Range 1(2)(2) Room No.535, 5Th Floor 46-A, Taj Printing Work Cawasji Patel Street Aayakar Bhavan Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aagcm1345P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM M/s. M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Ltd Income tax, Range 1(2)(2) Room No.535, 5th Floor 46-A, Taj Printing Work Cawasji Patel Street Aayakar Bhavan Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No.AAGCM1345P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ryan Saldanha Revenue by Shri J. Saravanan Date of Hearing 27/08/2019 Date of Pronouncement 04/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.1904/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2013-14 arises out of the or…

Avinash Nivruti Bhosale, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1239/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1239/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Avinash Nivruti Bhosale, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, 2, Abil House, Pune Range Hill Corner, Ganesh Khind Road, Pune 411 007 Pan : Abtpb8151F Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…f Rule 8D(2)(iii), should be confined to those securities in respect of which exempt income is earned and not the total investments. Similar view has been taken by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB) 3 Avinash N. Bhosale holding that only those investments should be considered for computing average value of investments which yield exempt income during the year. Respectfully following the precedents, we set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the AO for computing the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) in…

Kalyani Steels Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 904/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.904/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Kalyani Steels Ltd., Mundhwa, Pune-411036. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack7315D बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-14. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri Vishwas Mundhe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-7, Pune Dated 11.11.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. During The Proceedings Before Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Filed An Additional Ground & Submitted That If The Said Additional Ground Is Allowed In Favour Of The Assessee, The Adjudication Of Other Regular Grounds Becomes Academic Exercise Only. Accordingly, The Said Additional Ground Filed By The Assessee Is Extracted As Under :- “1] The Assessee Submits That The Investments On Which No Tax Free Income Has Been Earned During The Year Should Be Excluded For The Purposes Of Computing The Disallowance U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D(Iii).”

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s of Rule 8D(2)(iii), should be confined to those securities in respect of which exempt income is earned and not the total investments. Similar view has been taken by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB) holding that only those investments should be considered for computing average value of investments which yield exempt income during the year. In view of the afore referred precedents, we set aside the impugned order to this extent and remit the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for re-computing the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i…

Deputy Commssioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Igate Global Solutions Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 342/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Section 115JSection 195(2)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…of Rule 8D(2)(iii), should be confined to those securities in respect of which exempt income is earned and not the total investments. Similar view has been taken by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB) holding that only those investments should be considered for computing average value of investments which yield exempt income during the year. In view of the afore referred precedents, we set aside the impugned order to this extent and remit the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for re-computing the disallowance under Rule 8…