TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 2090X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee funds are much more than the investments. If the submissions of the assessee are found to be correct, no disallowance under Rule 8D2(ii) is required in view of the decisions in the cases of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd [ 2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and CIT v. Reliance Utilities Power Limited [ 2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Similarly, the Special Bench in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [ 2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] held that only those investments which yielded dividend income should be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii). Thus, respectfully following the Special Bench decision, we direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii) following the Special Bench. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,591/- and under Rule 8D2(iii) at ₹.2,12,627/-. The working of the Assessing Officer towards disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D was sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) by following his predecessor s order for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us contends that the total investments made by the assessee during the current Assessment Year are only to the extent of ₹.1039.86 Lakhs and whereas Capital and Reserves of the assessee stood at ₹.2818.77 Lakhs. He further submitted that the Coordinate Bench in assessee s own case for the Assessment Year 2008-09 to 2010-11 had accepted the contention of the assessee that, if adequate interest free funds are available then no disallowance needed in view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntentions of the assessee that the interest free funds are much more than the investments. If the submissions of the assessee are found to be correct, no disallowance under Rule 8D2(ii) is required in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd and CIT v. Reliance Utilities Power Limited (supra). Similarly, the Special Bench in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited held that only those investments which yielded dividend income should be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii). Thus, respectfully following the Special Bench decision, we direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii) following the Special Bench. Accordingly, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest was disallowed u/s. 36(1)(iii) and also no proportionate interest expenses were disallowed towards and the advances to partnership firm. 8. Ld.DR has no objection in following the order of the Coordinate Bench in assessee s own case for the earlier year Assessment Years. 9. On hearing both the parties, we find that the issue in appeal has been set-aside by the Coordinate Bench in assessee s own case for the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 and consequential orders were also passed accepting the contentions of the assessee. Respectfully following the said decision of the Coordinate Bench in ITA.No. 1679 and 6423/Mum/2013 dated 16.06.2016, we restore ground No.2 to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
