TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rievance fails therefore. Addition u/sec 115JB MAT issue qua sec 14A disallowance - HELD THAT:- This tribunal s special bench in VIREET INVESTMENT (P.) LTD. [ 2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] has decided the issue to assessee s favour. Thus Rule 27 petition is partly allowed to this limited extent. - ITA Nos.1080/Hyd/2019 & 2116/Hyd/2018 - - - Dated:- 9-4-2021 - Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member AND Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Sri Rajan Vora For the Revenue : Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, J.M. These two Revenue s appeals for AYs.2010-11 2014- 15 arise from the CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad s orders dated 24.4.2019 and 7.8.2018 passed in appeal No.10584/2015-16/I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn case for the AY 2009-10 in ITA No. 1743/Hyd/2013 AY 2013-14 in ITA No.1462/Hyd/2017 AY 201415 in ITA No.0098/CIT(A)- 1/Hyd/2017-18, Pr.CIT Vs. IL FS Energy Development, Chemivest Lid Vs. CIT [2015J 234 Taxmann 761 and Srinivasa Cystine Pvt ltd Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1846/ Hyd/ 2014, Vireet Investments Pvt ltd in ITA No. 502/ Del/2012. 6.3 With regard to the above ground, I have carefully considered the facts of the case, assessment order and submissions of the appellant. The Hon'ble ITAT order in the appellant's case for the AY 2013-14 held that the value of investment which yielded exempt income alone be considered for the purpose of computing the average value of investments for the purpose of quantifying the amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowance. The appellant company has made investment in the following cases: 1. M/s. Mimoza Enterprises Finance Private Limited 2. M/s. Janalakshmi Financial Services Private Limited 3. M/s. Equitas Holdings Private Limited 4. M/s. A Little World Private Limited 5. M/s. Sonata Finance Private Limited 6. Mr. Anup Kmar Singh As seen above, the appellant company received dividend from one of the six investment companies i.e., M/s. Janalakshmi Financial Services Private Limited. No dividend has been received from the other companies. Appellant has disallowed on its own an expenditure of ₹ 23,23,699/- for this. However, the Assessing Officer has calculated disallowances on basis of all investments. Al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant received dividend, the cost should be calculated. The Assessing Officer is directed to recalculate disallowance made on this issue accordance to the accepted view of the Hyderabad Tribunal. Ground Partly Allowed 5. Learned authorised representative at this stage invited our attention to assessee s petition under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules dated 30.12.2020 as under: Respected Sir/Madam, Ref: Caspian Impact Investments Private Limited (Formerly known as Bellwether Microfinance Fund Private Limited) ('Caspian' or the 'Company' or 'We' or 'Respondent') PAN: AADCS4132K; Assessment Year (' AY') 2014-15 ITA. No. 21 16/Hyd/2018 - Department's appeal Sub: Application under Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upheld the order of the learned AO for the 14A disallowance made u/s 115JB of the Act. In this regard, without prejudice to the findings of the learned CIT(A) in the CIT(A) Order, the Respondent wishes to submit the following: It is now a judicially settled principle that the disallowance made u/s 14A r.w.r 80 of the IT Rules is to be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee during that year. In this regard, the Respondent wishes to place reliance on the following judgements: 1. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2 v. Caraf Builders Constructions (P.) Ltd. lI2019j 112 taxmann.com 322 (SC)], wherein the SLP filed by the tax authorities against the judgement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be restricted to the quantum of exempt income earned during the year; b) Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO erred in law and fact in making adjustment to boo profit u/s 115JB of the Act for the expenditure computed u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r. Rule 8D the IT Rules. 4. On the point of right of Respondent as per Rule 27 of the Rules, Respondent wishes to pia reliance on the following: Skol Breweries Ltd Vs ACIT (ITA No. 34 of 2009) dated 9 February 2009 (Bom HC) C1T v Sundaram and Co Pvt Ltd - 52 ITR 763 (Mad) CIT v Edward Keventer (Successors) Pvt Ltd - 123 ITR 200 (Del) CIT v Bhumraddi (T.M) - 33 ITR 82 (Mum) Marolia and Sons v CIT - 129 ITR 475 (All) Dy CIT v Hind Industries Ltd - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
