Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)M/S. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., New ... vs Acit, New Delhi on 16 June, 2017
Thus, in the light of
aforesaid decisions we deem it fit and proper to restore this issue to the file of Assessing
Officer for the limited purpose of recomputation of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) in line
7
ITA NO.5659/MUM/2018(A.Y.2012-13)
ITA NO.5603/MUM/2018(A.Y.2012-13)
with the principles laid down in the case of PCIT vs. State Bank of Patiala and ACIT
vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra)
Icici Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit Rg 4(1), Mumbai on 19 March, 2018
The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further submitted that the
Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No.6993/Mum/2013 for assessment year
2011-12 decided on 05/05/2017 and in the case of assessee's group concern
M/s.Kotak Securities Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No.6666/Mum/2016 assessment year 2012-
13 decided on 19/09/2018 had adjudicated the issue of disallowance under section
14A r.w.r. 8D(2). The Tribunal in both the aforesaid cases has held that the
disallowance be restricted to exempt income earned and only dividend yielding
investments be considered for computing avg. value of investments.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. on 5 September, 2014
In the first appellate proceeding, the assessee demonstrated that own interest free
funds of the assessee were sufficient to cover the investment made. The CIT(A)
deleted the disallowance made u/r 8D(2)(ii) by following the decision of Hon'ble
Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra). The Revenue
in ground No.1 of the appeal has impugned the findings of CIT(A) in deleting the
disallowance made un Rule 8D(2)(ii) in respect of interest expenditure. No material
has been placed on record by the Revenue to controvert the findings of CIT(A) . We
do not find any infirmity in the findings of CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made
under Rule 8D(2)(ii). The ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is devoid of any
merit. The same is dismissed, accordingly.
Cit vs Industrlal Credit & Development ... on 2 March, 2006
13. The ground No.3 of the appeal by the Revenue is in respect of disallowance of
discount on buy back of debentures. The assessee during period the relevant to
assessment year under appeal has received Rs.18,97,915/- on premature
redemption of debentures. The assessee has treated the receipts on buy back of
8
ITA NO.5659/MUM/2018(A.Y.2012-13)
ITA NO.5603/MUM/2018(A.Y.2012-13)
debentures as capital in nature. The Assessing Officer held that the receipts are on
revenue account and thus, made addition of Rs.18,97,915/-. The CIT(A) reversed the
findings of Assessing Officer and upheld the asessee's contention that receipts on
redemption of debenture are capital in nature. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in
the case of CIT vs. Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate (supra), in a case
where the assessee had redeemed debentures at a rates less than the face value
and treated difference between its face value and buy back cost as capital
receipt, the Assessing Officer treated the said surplus as income, the Hon'ble High
Court endorsing the finding of Tribunal in holding the surplus as capital innature
observed:
Reliance Infratel Limited vs State Of Chhattisgarh 5 Wpc/129/2017 ... on 10 February, 2020
"1. Whether on the facts of the instant case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the
disallowance of Rs.6,59,63,725/- without appreciating the fact that decision of Hon'ble High
Court in the case of C1T Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) was rendered
prior to introduction of Rule 8D and in that case the issue was regarding disallowance of
interest u/s.36(l)(iii) and not 14A and assessee had made non-current investment of
Rs.100.48 crore. The Ld.CIT(A) further erred in not considering the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Maxopp Investments Pvt. Ltd.
Section 36 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs State Bank Of Patiala The Mall Patiala on 11 December, 2017
To support his contention, the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Principal CIT vs. State Bank of Patiala, 259 Taxman 314 and the decision of Special
Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., reported as
188 TTJ 1(Del-Trib)(SB).
1