TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le arriving at Book Profits u/s 115JB - Held that:- We find that this issue stood squarely covered in assessee’s favor by the judgment of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd.[2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] held that computation under clause (f) of explanation 1 to section 115 JB (2) of the Act is to be made without resorting to computation as contemplated u/s 14A of the Act r/w Rule 8D of the Rules. - Decided against revenue - I.T.A. No.5289/Mum/2016 - - - Dated:- 10-10-2018 - SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM For The Assessee : Rajan R. Vora, Ld.AR For The Revenue : Chaudhary Arun kumar, Ld. DR ORDER Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 115JB has been computed at ₹ 475.44 Lacs as against ₹ 416.82 Lacs computed by the assessee. During impugned AY, the assessee being resident corporate entity earned income from the business of finance, leasing, loans, investments and income from house property. As evident from grounds of appeal, the sole subject matter of the present appeal is disallowance u/s 14A while computing normal income as well as while computing Book Profits for the purpose of Section 115JB. 3. During assessment proceedings, it was noted that the assessee earned exempt dividend income u/s 10(34) for ₹ 317.66 Lacs, which called for disallowance u/s 14A. The assessee had not made any suomoto disallowance against the same while computing it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.30,000/- 3. Misc. Expenses Rs.19,907/- TOTAL Rs.5,13,281/- Still aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record. We find the issue to be in very compass i.e. whether the professional expenses / charges would form part of indirect expenditure for the purpose of computation of disallowance u/r 8D(2)(iii) or not. For the same, Ld. AR has placed reliance on the orders of Tribunal in earlier years. The perusal of order for AY 2009-10 ITA No.2927/Mum/2013 dated 16/06/2017 as well as common order for AYs 2010-11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13,281/-, which comes to ₹ 1,89,914/-. The disallowance to that extent stand sustained by us. 7. Ground Number-2 is related with adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A while arriving at Book Profits u/s 115JB. We find that this issue stood squarely covered in assessee s favor by the judgment of Delhi Tribunal (Special Bench) rendered in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. [82 Taxmann.com 415]. Upon perusal of the same, we find that Special Bench, after considering two contrary decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court titled as CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd. [2014 361 ITR 505] PCIT Vs. Bhushan Steel Ltd. [ITA 593/2015 dated 29/09/2015], took the view favorable to the assessee in terms of ratio of decision of Hon ble Supreme Court re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
