TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the same and, accordingly, we uphold the same. Disallowance u/s. 115JB - Applicability of Rule 8D u/s. 14A in MAT u/s. 115JB - HELD THAT:- In the preset case, we find that the assessee has already made an addition of ₹ 15,61,02,809/- towards disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income. The Assessing Officer proceeded to apply the provisions of Rule 8D u/s. 14A and accordingly based upon these calculation made further disallowance. Since this proposition is not in accordance with the Special Bench decision in the case of VIREET INVESTMENT (P.) LTD. [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] and the total disallowance in this regard is sufficient, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this ground raised by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 30,96,65,651/ as adopted by the AO considering the principle of apportionment as applied u/s. 14A r.w.rule 8D. 3) The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee had filed its original return of income for assessment year 2012- 13 declaring total loss of ₹ 2,89,45,87,522/- and book loss u/s. 115JB at ₹ 4,05,52,60,419/- on 29.09.2012. The assessee has filed the revised return on 10.03.2014 declaring current year s loss at ₹ 2,89,45,87,522/- under normal provisions and book profit u/s. 115JB at ₹ 4,05,52,60,419/-. The assessee filed the revised return to enhance th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 590/- u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8(D)(2)(iii) of expenses other than interest and since the assessee had suo motto disallowed as sum of ₹ 8,57,73,798/-, the balance amount of ₹ 23,87,81,792/- was disallowed being administrative cost for earning exempt income. The Assessing Officer made further disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of ₹ 26,46,62,753/- (2,58,80,961 + 23,87,81,792) i.e. the difference of attributable interest, which is over and above the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee and added it back to the total income of the assessee. 5. The assessee while computing the book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act made an addition of ₹ 15,61,02,809/- towards interest being expenditure relating to exempt income. The Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order for assessment year 2011-12 and held as under: 5.1.4 The same issue had been decided by me in the appellant's case in their appeal for assessment year 2011-12. The relevant part of that decision is quoted below: 6.2.10 I have considered the submissions of the appellant and the order of Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has applied the decision of Special bench in case of Cheminvest Ltd. The decision of Cheminvest Ltd. has been reversed by Delhi High Court. The appellant has relies upon the various decisions in support of their contention that the investments which have not yielded any exempt income during the year should be excluded in computing average investments. In other words, as per the appellant only those in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. Against the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 10. The ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the grounds of appeal and the orders of the Assessing Officer. 11. Per contra, the ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that both the issues are covered in favour of the assessee by the Special Bench decision in the case of Asst. CIT vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Del Trib.) (SB) and also several other decisions of tribunal, wherein the Special bench decision has been followed as above. 12. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that the Revenue s grievance in ground no. 1 is against the ld. CIT(A) s directions that disallowance u/s. 14A has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... done while computing book profit u/s. 115JB. We find that this proposition draw support from the Special Bench decision in the case of Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. (supra). The same ratio has been followed by the Tribunal in the several other decisions following the above said Special Bench decision. In the present case, we note that the assessee has already made an addition of ₹ 15,61,02,809/- towards disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income. The ld. CIT(A) has further enhanced it by ₹ 40 lacs. The Revenue has not made any submission as to how this disallowance does not suffice. The only plea which has been raised is that the disallowance adopted by the Assessing Officer following Rule 8D in section 14A should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
