← All Phrases

“strategic investment”

DisallowancesSection 14ASection 14A426 judgments

The decision most relied on for strategic investment is Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (402 ITR 640), cited in 1,596 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on strategic investment

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
402 ITR 640 · 2018 · Supreme Court
1,596
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A is not automatic and requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D. Only investments yielding exempt income are considered for disallowance, irrespective of their strategic nature.

Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. ACIT
65 SOT 86 · 2014 · ITAT
74
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) does not apply to long-term investments, including those in subsidiary/group concerns or strategic investments, and such investments should be excluded from the calculation.

Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT & Excess Profits Tax
34 ITR 368 · 1958 · Supreme Court
57
citing judgments

Investments made by a holding company in its subsidiary can be considered a business activity, allowing related business expenditures to be deducted and not disallowed.

Southern Petro Chemical Industries v. DCIT
3 SOT 157 · 2005 · ITAT
34
citing judgments

Proportionate management expenses are deductible when computing exempt dividend income, as investment decisions are strategic and involve top management.

Gareware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. ACIT
46 Taxmann.com 18 · 2014 · ITAT
22
citing judgments

Strategic investments in wholly-owned subsidiaries are to be excluded when calculating the disallowance under Section 14A, which pertains to expenses incurred in relation to exempt income. This exclusion applies even when these investments are made for holding a controlling stake rather than for earning dividends.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 v. Enrich Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd.
148 Taxmann.com 26 · 2023 · High Court
20
citing judgments

The Delhi High Court confirms that when shares are issued at a premium to investors, the valuation of such shares must be assessed based on established methods like the NAV or DCF method, and the revenue cannot arbitrarily determine the fair market value.

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited v. JCIT
36 SOT 348 · 2010 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

Investments on which no exempt income was received during the year, and investments in subsidiaries considered strategic, are excluded from average investment calculations for determining disallowance of interest expenses.

366 ITR 505 (Bom), CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power
239 ITR 735 · High Court
13
citing judgments

Investments made by an assessee are presumed to be out of interest-free funds, and no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no dividend income is received from such strategic investments.

Judgments citing strategic investment

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग

Asst CIT RG 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Crisil Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the issue under

ITA 843/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble

Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER And

Crisil Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 9(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 1114/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER And

Crisil Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 1564/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER And

Crisil Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 7603/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER And

Nngd Leasing and Trading Private Limited ( Formerly Murugun Textile Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2753/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Nngd Leasing & Trading Private Limited The Dcit (Formerly Murugun Textile P. Ltd.) Circle 1(1)(1), 102, Jamuna Chs Ltd, Plot Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, No.65, Sher E-Punjab Society, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai -400 093 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcm4669F

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Haria, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, SR DR
Section 143Section 37

such interest expenditure is not allowable under section 37 (1) of the act. 06. The assessee submitted on 26/12/2018 that all those investments are strategic investment made by the assessee company with goal and mission to develop and expand the business and therefore investment made is for the purpose ... question of disallowance of any interest. 07. The learned assessing officer held that there is no nexus of investment made in those companies as strategic investment as business of such companies is different from that of the assessee. Further some investment was made from interest free funds cannot be believed

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Alpha G. Corp. Development Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue being devoid of merit is dismissed

ITA 6049/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. Debesh Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sanjay Kumar &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

earning of the exempt income. 4 The assessee has made investment in the subsidiary company for the purposes of control and therefore these are strategic investment on which no disallowance under section 14A can be made. (c) Assessee has not incurred any expenditure on earning exempt income. 11. Dissatisfied ... assessee’s case. 23. In our humble opinion, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is still maintainable de-hors his finding on strategic investment. 24. We, therefore, hold that on the facts and in law as set out above, the Ld. CIT(A) was perfectly justified in deleting

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(2), Mumbai vs. Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above directions

ITA 2164/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleviraj Profiles Pvt Ltd V. Dy. Cit - Central Circle- 3(2) (Formerly Known As Viraj Profiles Limited) Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor 1St Floor, Viraj Towers Air India Building Jn Of Andheri Kurla Road Nariman Point W.E. Highway, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabcv1740N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Central Circle- 3(2) V. Viraj Profiles Pvt Ltd (Formerly Known As Viraj Profiles Limited) Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor 1St Floor, Viraj Towers Air India Building, Nariman Jn Of Andheri Kurla Road Point W.E. Highway, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabcv1740N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Mani Jain Department Represented By : Shri. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan

Section 250Section 37Section 80G

incurred any expenditure to earn the exempt income and further, it was submitted that assessee has made major investments in group companies which are strategic investments. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Assessing Officer rejected the same and proceeded to make the additions by relying on relevant case laws

Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above directions

ITA 1213/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleviraj Profiles Pvt Ltd V. Dy. Cit - Central Circle- 3(2) (Formerly Known As Viraj Profiles Limited) Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor 1St Floor, Viraj Towers Air India Building Jn Of Andheri Kurla Road Nariman Point W.E. Highway, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabcv1740N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Central Circle- 3(2) V. Viraj Profiles Pvt Ltd (Formerly Known As Viraj Profiles Limited) Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor 1St Floor, Viraj Towers Air India Building, Nariman Jn Of Andheri Kurla Road Point W.E. Highway, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabcv1740N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Mani Jain Department Represented By : Shri. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan

Section 250Section 37Section 80G

incurred any expenditure to earn the exempt income and further, it was submitted that assessee has made major investments in group companies which are strategic investments. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Assessing Officer rejected the same and proceeded to make the additions by relying on relevant case laws

DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Ufo Moviez India Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3728/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Circle-27(1), 1-B, Sagar Apartments, New Delhi 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 1-B, Sagar Apartments, Circle-27(1), 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E (Appellants) (Respondents) Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. & Shri Yishu Goel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 Order

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 15JSection 36(1)(va)

case of appellant, it is noted that investment has been made in the Indian subsidiaries and also in foreign companies claimed to be strategic investment. Also, the dividend arising out of investment in foreign companies is taxable in India U/s. 115BBD of the Act. This fact coupled with ratio ... learned AO had erred in not appreciating the fact that most of the Appellant's investments were in its subsidiaries/ group companies (strategic investments) and the said investments were made with a view to enhance its business and not to earn exempt dividend income; 4.2 the learned AO had erred

Ufo Moviez India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.CIT-27(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1942/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Circle-27(1), 1-B, Sagar Apartments, New Delhi 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 1-B, Sagar Apartments, Circle-27(1), 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E (Appellants) (Respondents) Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. & Shri Yishu Goel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 Order

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 15JSection 36(1)(va)

case of appellant, it is noted that investment has been made in the Indian subsidiaries and also in foreign companies claimed to be strategic investment. Also, the dividend arising out of investment in foreign companies is taxable in India U/s. 115BBD of the Act. This fact coupled with ratio ... learned AO had erred in not appreciating the fact that most of the Appellant's investments were in its subsidiaries/ group companies (strategic investments) and the said investments were made with a view to enhance its business and not to earn exempt dividend income; 4.2 the learned AO had erred

DCIT- CC - 7(3), Mumbai vs. Acg Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 3283/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved/For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

observed that the assessee has computed the disallowance without considering the investment in the group concerns on the pretext that the same are strategic investments where the assessee has invested in the capital of the firms in which the share of profit received by the assessee has been claimed ... challenged the impugned disallowance before us. 20. The ld. AR for the assessee contended that the investments made in the subsidiary companies are strategic investments which should not be considered for computing the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. The ld. AR relied on a catena

DCIT CC- 7(3), Mumbai vs. Acg Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 3282/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved/For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

observed that the assessee has computed the disallowance without considering the investment in the group concerns on the pretext that the same are strategic investments where the assessee has invested in the capital of the firms in which the share of profit received by the assessee has been claimed ... challenged the impugned disallowance before us. 20. The ld. AR for the assessee contended that the investments made in the subsidiary companies are strategic investments which should not be considered for computing the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. The ld. AR relied on a catena

Acg Assocation Capsules P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 2384/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved/For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

observed that the assessee has computed the disallowance without considering the investment in the group concerns on the pretext that the same are strategic investments where the assessee has invested in the capital of the firms in which the share of profit received by the assessee has been claimed ... challenged the impugned disallowance before us. 20. The ld. AR for the assessee contended that the investments made in the subsidiary companies are strategic investments which should not be considered for computing the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. The ld. AR relied on a catena

Acg Assocation Capsules P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 2383/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved/For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

observed that the assessee has computed the disallowance without considering the investment in the group concerns on the pretext that the same are strategic investments where the assessee has invested in the capital of the firms in which the share of profit received by the assessee has been claimed ... challenged the impugned disallowance before us. 20. The ld. AR for the assessee contended that the investments made in the subsidiary companies are strategic investments which should not be considered for computing the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. The ld. AR relied on a catena

Tech Mahindra Limited (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Range 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2463/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tech Mahindra Limited Dy. Cit, Range 2(2) (Earlier Known As Mahindra Mumbai Engineering Services Limited) Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Assessee) (Revenue) : & Asst. Cit-2(3)(1) Tech Mahindra Ltd. Mumbai (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd.) Vs. Mahindra Tower, 1St Floor, B Wing, Dr. G M Bhosale Marg, P K Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

HDFC amounting to Rs.40 crores for the purpose of acquiring 70% stake in Engines Engineering SRL (EE), a company incorporated in Italy as a strategic investment for the purpose of utilizing the said business for global market by the assessee company. (Earlier known as Mahindra Engineering Services Limited) The assessee

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2282/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tech Mahindra Limited Dy. Cit, Range 2(2) (Earlier Known As Mahindra Mumbai Engineering Services Limited) Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Assessee) (Revenue) : & Asst. Cit-2(3)(1) Tech Mahindra Ltd. Mumbai (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd.) Vs. Mahindra Tower, 1St Floor, B Wing, Dr. G M Bhosale Marg, P K Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

HDFC amounting to Rs.40 crores for the purpose of acquiring 70% stake in Engines Engineering SRL (EE), a company incorporated in Italy as a strategic investment for the purpose of utilizing the said business for global market by the assessee company. (Earlier known as Mahindra Engineering Services Limited) The assessee

Indus Towers Ltd, Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Petition of the assessee is hereby dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1051/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 115Section 14ASection 251(2)

During the year under consideration, the assessee earned following exempt incomes: a. Dividend income aggregating to Rs.950,95,76,000 on its strategic investment in shares of Joint Venture company (e-Indus) claimed as exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act; SA No. 386/Del/2023 Indus Towers Ltd. b. Interest income

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Ptc India Financial Services Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

ITA 7433/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 36(1)(viii)Section 37

computed on the basis of a prudent and reasonable method adopted by the assessee. Hence reference to Rule 8D is not called for. Strategic investments be not considered while computing disallowance under section 14A vis a vis Rule 8D. Hence no further disallowance be made under section 14A r.w. Rule ... Rule 8D(i) & Rule 8D(ii) is required. The assessee itself computed disallowance on a prudent and reasonable basis. It was also submitted that strategic investments be not considered while computing disallowance. 31.1 The submission of the assessee was not acceptable to the Ld. AO who relying on several decisions

Ptc India Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

ITA 7273/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 36(1)(viii)Section 37

computed on the basis of a prudent and reasonable method adopted by the assessee. Hence reference to Rule 8D is not called for. Strategic investments be not considered while computing disallowance under section 14A vis a vis Rule 8D. Hence no further disallowance be made under section 14A r.w. Rule ... Rule 8D(i) & Rule 8D(ii) is required. The assessee itself computed disallowance on a prudent and reasonable basis. It was also submitted that strategic investments be not considered while computing disallowance. 31.1 The submission of the assessee was not acceptable to the Ld. AO who relying on several decisions