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 1221 - ITAT MUMBAIDisallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D2(ii) - Held that:- In respect of interest expenditure - CIT-A allowed claim - Held that:- On perusal of the order of the CIT(A) we find that the interest expenditure was deleted based on the fact that assessee made investments from out of the sale of land and no borrowed funds were utilized for such investments. Thus, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the interest under Rule 8D2(ii) is sustained. Whether investments not yielded income during the year should be excluded for the purpose of computing the average investments under Rule 8D2(iii)? - Held that:- This issued stands covered by the recent decision of the Special Bench in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI ] wherein held that only those investments are to be considered for computing the average value of investments which yielded exempt income during the year. Thus, respectfully following the said decision we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii) in accordance with the decision of the Special Bench (supra) Referring the matter to the Valuation Officer u/s 55A(b)(ii) - addition on account understatement of capital gains - value adopted by the assessee is more than the fair market value adopted by the DVO - Held that:- In the case on hand also the case is covered by section 55A(a) since value of the asset claimed by the assessee is on the basis of the estimation made by the Registered Valuer. Therefore, in our opinion the issue is squarely stands covered by the decision in the case of CIT v. Puja Prints [2014 (1) TMI 764 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Thus, respectfully following the said decision we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in holding that the reference to DVO is bad in law. We sustain the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue.
|