Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 655 - ITAT MUMBAIAddition u/s 14A - suo moto disallowance by assessee - Held that:- On a perusal of the Assessment Order we find that Assessing Officer has clearly stated as to why the working of the assessee is not acceptable for him. Assessing Officer has given reasons for not accepting the working of the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer. The alternative submission of the assessee that only those investments which have yielded dividend income during the year should be considered has been accepted by the Ld.CIT(A). In the circumstances we do not see any valid reason to interfere with the decision of the Ld. CIT(A). Ground No.1 of the grounds of appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 are rejected. MAT computation - Disallowance u./s 14A while computing the book profits u/s 115JB - Held that:- On hearing both the parties we are of the view that the issue of disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D while computing the book profits is now settled by the Special Bench Delhi in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited (2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI ) wherein it has been held that computation under Clause (f) of explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2) is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of I.T. Rules. Therefore, respectfully following the said decision we hold that there should not be any disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D while computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the book profits u/s 115JB keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble Special Bench (supra). This ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Addition u/s 14A - Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 - Held that:- Disallowance computed u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D by the Assessing Officer is not correct. Thus we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-compute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) in view the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] by considering only those investments which yielded dividend income during the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11
|