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.

Manipal Hospitals Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As Columbia Asia Hospitals Pvt. Ltd), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 722/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…re no disallowance can be made. 36. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the explanation of the assessee upholding the disallowance to the normal computation of total income. However, addition to the book profit was deleted on the basis of decision of coordinate Bench in 165 ITD 27. Thus, assessee is in appeal before us. 37. The argument of the assessee is that disallowance has been made without recording a satisfaction by the ld. AO about the correctness of the claim of the assessee that it has not incurred any expenditure for earning exempt income. Before us he referred to plethora of judicial precedents including the dec…

Manipal Education and Medical Group India Pvt. Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 721/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…re no disallowance can be made. 36. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the explanation of the assessee upholding the disallowance to the normal computation of total income. However, addition to the book profit was deleted on the basis of decision of coordinate Bench in 165 ITD 27. Thus, assessee is in appeal before us. 37. The argument of the assessee is that disallowance has been made without recording a satisfaction by the ld. AO about the correctness of the claim of the assessee that it has not incurred any expenditure for earning exempt income. Before us he referred to plethora of judicial precedents including the dec…

Manipal Education and Medical Group India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 720/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…re no disallowance can be made. 36. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the explanation of the assessee upholding the disallowance to the normal computation of total income. However, addition to the book profit was deleted on the basis of decision of coordinate Bench in 165 ITD 27. Thus, assessee is in appeal before us. 37. The argument of the assessee is that disallowance has been made without recording a satisfaction by the ld. AO about the correctness of the claim of the assessee that it has not incurred any expenditure for earning exempt income. Before us he referred to plethora of judicial precedents including the dec…

Manipal Education and Medical Group India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 719/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…re no disallowance can be made. 36. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the explanation of the assessee upholding the disallowance to the normal computation of total income. However, addition to the book profit was deleted on the basis of decision of coordinate Bench in 165 ITD 27. Thus, assessee is in appeal before us. 37. The argument of the assessee is that disallowance has been made without recording a satisfaction by the ld. AO about the correctness of the claim of the assessee that it has not incurred any expenditure for earning exempt income. Before us he referred to plethora of judicial precedents including the dec…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai vs. Gateway Distriparks Ltd, Raigad

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA

ITA 2432/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeejoint Commissioner Of Vs Gateway Distriparks Ltd Income-Tax (Osd), Central Sector 6, Dronagiri, Taluka Uran, Circle 2(1), Mumbai, Raigad. 8Th 804, Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aaacg3425C 400 020 Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar JainFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 250

…5. The Ld.AR on the other hand, submitted that the insertion of Explanation 14A was made in the amendment made in Finance Act, 2022. Relying on the judicial decision Special Bench of coordinate bench of ITAT-Delhi in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt Ltd vs ACIT 165 ITD 27 (Delhi-Trib), which pre-date the amendment made in the form of insertion of Explanation to section 14A of Finance Act, 2022, has been re-affirmed by Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Reliance Power Ltd (2024) 159 taxmann.com 1626 (Mumbai Tribunal), by holding as below:- “19) Assessee aggrieved with the disallowance made by the learned AO, approa…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore

ITA 2348/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 250

…ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024& CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 2347 & 2348/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2020-21 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd ITO #723/1, New No.37/1, 10th Main, Ward-7(2)(1) Vs. 36th Cross, Jayanagar 4th Block Bangalore Bangalore 560 011 PAN NO :AAAAB1598B APPELLANT RESPONDENT CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operativ…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Bangalore Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2347/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore “A”BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2020-21 APPELLANT RESPONDENT M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd #723/1, New No.37/1, 10th Main, Vs.36th Cross, Jayanagar 4th Block Bangalore 560 011 PAN NO:AAAAB1598B ITO Ward-7(2)(1) Bangalore CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 APPELLANT RESPONDENT M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd #723/1,…

DCIT-2 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Iss Facility Services India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2208/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 250

…ile calculating the average value of investment under Rule 8D, only the investment which yields exempt income can be considered in the light of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Private Limited, reported in (2007) 165 ITD 27 (Del-Trib) (SB). Accordingly, the learned AR submitted that if only exempt income yielding investments are considered, the same would result in disallowance of ₹ 20,13,566/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. On a without prejudice, the learned AR by referring to the financial statements of the assessee, forming part of the paper bo…

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Geecee Ventures Limited, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4119/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

…ule 8D of the IT Rules. 35. We are of the considered view that the approach adopted by the Assessee is in line with the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. : [2017] 165 ITD 27 (Delhi –Trib) (SB) wherein it was held that only investments yielding exempt income during the relevant previous year shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the average value of investment for the purpose of Rule 8D of the IT Rules. Therefore, the action of the CIT(A) deleting the additional disallowance made by the Assessi…

Geecee Ventures Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3975/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

…ule 8D of the IT Rules. 35. We are of the considered view that the approach adopted by the Assessee is in line with the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. : [2017] 165 ITD 27 (Delhi –Trib) (SB) wherein it was held that only investments yielding exempt income during the relevant previous year shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the average value of investment for the purpose of Rule 8D of the IT Rules. Therefore, the action of the CIT(A) deleting the additional disallowance made by the Assessi…

DCIT Cir 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Biostach India Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3559/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Biostadt India Limited V/S. Dcit 6(1), Mumbai Poonam Chambers, A बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Wing, 6Th Floor, Dr. A. B. 400020 Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccb1830G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…,154/-. 12.1 The assessee has submitted that the disallowance u/s 14A should not be taken into account while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act and has relied upon the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Delhi Trib.). Ld. DR has not controverted the above submissions made by Ld. AR. 12.2 After considering rival submissions, we hold that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Special Bench, and hence, provisions of Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D are not applicable while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 13. Ground No. 9 & 10: Di…

Biostadt India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 349/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Biostadt India Limited V/S. Dcit 6(1), Mumbai Poonam Chambers, A बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Wing, 6Th Floor, Dr. A. B. 400020 Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccb1830G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…,154/-. 12.1 The assessee has submitted that the disallowance u/s 14A should not be taken into account while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act and has relied upon the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Delhi Trib.). Ld. DR has not controverted the above submissions made by Ld. AR. 12.2 After considering rival submissions, we hold that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Special Bench, and hence, provisions of Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D are not applicable while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 13. Ground No. 9 & 10: Di…

ACIT-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Retail Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4251/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Advocate, Shri NimeshFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…de to the book profit u/s 115JB for the disallowance computed by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s 14A by applying rule 8D, case of the assessee is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Special Bench of Delhi ITAT in the case of ACIT vs Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. 165 ITD 27 (Del SB) wherein it is held that "In view of above discussion, we answer the question referred to us in favour of assessee by holding that the computation under clause (f) of Explanation 1 lo section 115JB(2) is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962." 5.3. According…

Atul Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 38/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

…hat in the assessee’s own case in a prior year, the Coordinate Bench had directed that disallowance under Rule 8D be restricted only to investments which yielded exempt income, in view of the decision of the Special Bench in Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. [(2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB)], and the Revenue was unable to point out any contrary binding decision or deviation in facts. Though in that year the assessee had not presented the same elaborate arguments as in the current year, the underlying principle remains supportive of the assessee’s claim. 19. In fact, if not for the absence of proper satisfaction under sect…

Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2868/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi
Section 115JSection 14ASection 8D(2)(ii)

…pt dividend income. He further submitted that only 0.5% of investments from which dividend has actually been earned. In support of his claim, he drew our attention to Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt.Ltd., (165 ITD 27) (Del). Hence, he pleaded that no disallowance u/s.8D(2)(ii) is called for in the present case. 4.1. Per contra, Ld.DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 4.2 We have heard both the parties and perused record.The special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investment [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi-Trib.)(SB) held as under: 6…

Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2867/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi
Section 115JSection 14ASection 8D(2)(ii)

…pt dividend income. He further submitted that only 0.5% of investments from which dividend has actually been earned. In support of his claim, he drew our attention to Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt.Ltd., (165 ITD 27) (Del). Hence, he pleaded that no disallowance u/s.8D(2)(ii) is called for in the present case. 4.1. Per contra, Ld.DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 4.2 We have heard both the parties and perused record.The special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investment [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi-Trib.)(SB) held as under: 6…

Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu-1, Chennai

ITA 2866/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2865, 2866, 2867 & 2868/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2018-19) M/S. Carborundum Universal Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Limited, No. 43, Vi Floor, Parry House Moore Street,Chennai Gpo Parrys, – 600 001. Pan: Aaacc-2474-P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकी तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)]All Dated10.09.2024 For Assessment Years 2010-11, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2018-19.Since The Facts & Issues Are Common In These Appeals, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi
Section 115JSection 14ASection 8D(2)(ii)

…pt dividend income. He further submitted that only 0.5% of investments from which dividend has actually been earned. In support of his claim, he drew our attention to Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt.Ltd., (165 ITD 27) (Del). Hence, he pleaded that no disallowance u/s.8D(2)(ii) is called for in the present case. 4. 1. Per contra, Ld.DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 4.2 We have heard both the parties and perused record.The special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investment [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi-Trib.)(SB) held as under:…

Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2865/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi
Section 115JSection 14ASection 8D(2)(ii)

…pt dividend income. He further submitted that only 0.5% of investments from which dividend has actually been earned. In support of his claim, he drew our attention to Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt.Ltd., (165 ITD 27) (Del). Hence, he pleaded that no disallowance u/s.8D(2)(ii) is called for in the present case. 4.1. Per contra, Ld.DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 4.2 We have heard both the parties and perused record.The special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investment [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi-Trib.)(SB) held as under: 6…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. E I D Parry India Limited, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3251/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

…t year and if the same exceeds the investments which has resulted in exempt income, by relying upon the IT(TP)A Nos.105 to 107/Chny/2024 & ITA No. 3113 & 3251/Chny/24 decision Delhi Special Bench in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. reported in 165 ITD 27 (Del. SB), the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) has to be restricted at 0.5% of investments, which has actually yielded exempt income during the year after reducing suo motu disallowance made by the assessee and not the average of investments as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee. 16. The…

M/S. Eid Parry India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu-1, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3113/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

…t year and if the same exceeds the investments which has resulted in exempt income, by relying upon the IT(TP)A Nos.105 to 107/Chny/2024 & ITA No. 3113 & 3251/Chny/24 decision Delhi Special Bench in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. reported in 165 ITD 27 (Del. SB), the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) has to be restricted at 0.5% of investments, which has actually yielded exempt income during the year after reducing suo motu disallowance made by the assessee and not the average of investments as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee. 16. The…