ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, **appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar**

…or rejecting the *suo-motto* disallowance made by assessee in return of income.The ld.CIT(A) accepted the alternative plea of assessee and directed the AO to compute the disallowance based on decision of Special Bench in case of **Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. 165 ITD 27 (Delhi-Trib.)**. i.e. disallowance to be made considering only those investments which yield exempt income during the year 22. It is pleaded by the ld.AR. that the assessee has made all investments, which yield tax-free income out of its capital and reserves i.e. owned funds. No administrative expenditure can be attributed towards making such inv…

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(2)(2), Assessment Unit, Income Tax Dept, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

…in ITA No. 4056/M/2023 & others (ITAT, Mumbai) dated 08.08.2024 and HDFC Bank Ltd v DCIT ITA No.1783/M/2023.Without prejudice to the above contention, the disallowance should be restricted as per decision of Special Bench in case of Vireet Investments Pvt Ltd 165 ITD 27 (Delhi-Trib.) i.e. disallowance to be made considering only those investments which yield exempt income during the year. Such claim is allowed in the Respondent's own case by ITAT, Mumbai vide order in ITA No. 3267 to 3269/M/2019 dated 16-02-2023. 23.On due consideration of all the relevant facts of the case, the rival contentions and the position…

Aha Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2018-19 Aha Holdings Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Unit No. 403, New Udyog Mandir Tax, No. 2, Mogul Lane, Vs. Circle-6(1)(1), Mahim (West), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Mumbai. Pan : Aafcs6404E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe For Revenue : Shri Rama Krishn Kedia, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-12-2024 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M :

…A) has added the amount computed by him u/s. 14A of the Act to the net profit for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act. This is against the decision rendered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment P. Ltd., (2017) 4 [165 ITD 27] (Delhi) (SB). Accordingly, we direct the AO to compute the addition to be made under clause (f) of explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act as per the books of account independently. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19-12-2024 [ANIKESH BANERJEE] [B.R. BASKARAN] JUDICIAL MEM…

ACIT Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ganjam Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan: A.Y. : 2018-19 C.O. No. 99/Mum/2024 : A.Y. : 2018-19 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 458/M/24)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “G” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y. : 2018-19 C.O. No. 99/Mum/2024 : A.Y. : 2018-19 (Arising out of ITA No. 458/M/24) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Vyoman India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-8(3)(1), (Successor to Ganjam Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.,) Room No. 446, 4th Floor, 1, New Prakash Cinema, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mumbai. Lower Parel West, Mumbai. (Appellant) PAN : AAWCS1972Q (Respondent/Cross Objector) For Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate & Shri Jay Bhansali, A…

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the miscellaneous applications and appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Juducial Member Ma Nos. 72 & 73/Mum/2019 (Ita No. 7595/Mum/2013) (Ita No. 1855/Mum/2015) Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Tata Industries Ltd., The Acit, Range-2(3) 24, Bombay House, Mumbai - 400020 Homi Modi Street, Fort, Vs. Mumbai – 400001 Pan: Aaact4058L (Appellant) (Respondent)

…plication money and investment which did not yielded any income during the year needs to be excluded. The ITAT has also mentioned that assessee has relied upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Delhi). The ITAT stated that although the assessee has taken additional P a g e | 3 MA Nos. 72 to 75/Mum/2019 Tata Industries Ltd. ground of appeal for exclusion of share application money and investment which did not yielded exempt income for the purpose of computation of average value of investment for the first time before the CIT(A), the fa…

Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the miscellaneous applications and appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Juducial Member Ma Nos. 72 & 73/Mum/2019 (Ita No. 7595/Mum/2013) (Ita No. 1855/Mum/2015) Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Tata Industries Ltd., The Acit, Range-2(3) 24, Bombay House, Mumbai - 400020 Homi Modi Street, Fort, Vs. Mumbai – 400001 Pan: Aaact4058L (Appellant) (Respondent)

…plication money and investment which did not yielded any income during the year needs to be excluded. The ITAT has also mentioned that assessee has relied upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Delhi). The ITAT stated that although the assessee has taken additional P a g e | 3 MA Nos. 72 to 75/Mum/2019 Tata Industries Ltd. ground of appeal for exclusion of share application money and investment which did not yielded exempt income for the purpose of computation of average value of investment for the first time before the CIT(A), the fa…

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai. vs. Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai

…in Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules while computing Book Profits under Section 115JB of the Act by following the decision of 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). 7. Since, both, the Assessee as well as the Revenue were aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the present cross-appeals were preferred before the Tribunal. The grounds raised by the Assessee and Revenue are reproduced in paragraph 3 and 4 above, respectively. ITA No. 556/Mum/2024 8. We would first take up appeal preferre…

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai

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

…in Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules while computing Book Profits under Section 115JB of the Act by following the decision of 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). ITA No. 502/Mum/2024, ITA No.302/Mum/2024 ITA No.556/Mum/2024 & ITA No. 557/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 7. Since, both, the Assessee as well as the Revenue were aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the present cross-appeals were preferred before the Tribunal. The grounds raised by the Assessee and Reven…

Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 1 (1) (1), Mumbai

…in Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules while computing Book Profits under Section 115JB of the Act by following the decision of 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). 7. Since, both, the Assessee as well as the Revenue were aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the present cross-appeals were preferred before the Tribunal. The grounds raised by the Assessee and Revenue are reproduced in paragraph 3 and 4 above, respectively. ITA No. 556/Mum/2024 8. We would first take up appeal preferre…

Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional -Joint -Deputy-Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- ITO, Delhi

…in Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules while computing Book Profits under Section 115JB of the Act by following the decision of 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). 7. Since, both, the Assessee as well as the Revenue were aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the present cross-appeals were preferred before the Tribunal. The grounds raised by the Assessee and Revenue are reproduced in paragraph 3 and 4 above, respectively. ITA No. 556/Mum/2024 8. We would first take up appeal preferre…