9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Bench of ITAT, Delhi in Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. [ 2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] held that the only investments which yielded exempt income alone had to be considered for the purpose of computing the amount of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. However, the direction of the CIT(A) to A.O. to exclude the investment in subsidiary companies cannot be upheld in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [ 2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was laid down that the strategic investments cannot be excluded from the purview of the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. Therefore, the direction of the CIT(A) stands modified to this extent. Disallowance under Section 14A not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, namely, Shriram Venture Ltd., formerly known as Shriram Industrial Holdings Ltd., is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of investments. The return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed on 30th November, 2013 declaring loss of ₹ 6,44,20,867/-. The return of income was revised on 27th March, 2015 declaring total income of ₹ 2,09,910/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer ( A.O. in short) vide order dated 31st December, 2016 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 92CA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') at total income of ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee-company is in appeal before us in I.T.A. Nos.3095 3096/Chny/2017 and being aggrieved by that part of the order of the CIT(A), which is against the Revenue, the Revenue is in appeal before us in I.T.A. Nos.3059 3060/Chny/2017 for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. 5. Let s take up the Revenue s appeals first. The Revenue has raised similar grounds for both the assessment years which are as follows:- 1.The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A under Rule 8D on the following lines. a)After excluding the investment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) erred in deleting the addition made to book profits computed u/s 115JB being expenditure incurred to earn exempt income even though cl.(f) Explanation 1 to Se 115JB specifically provides for it. 3.) For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 6. The Revenue challenges the correctness of finding of the CIT(A) setting aside the matter to the A.O. and directing the A.O. to consider the disallowances after excluding the investments in foreign entities and exclude investment subsidiary companies and investments which had not earned the exempt income and also the finding o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 14A of the Act should not be added back to the book profit for the purpose of computing taxable income under Section 115JB of the Act, the CIT(A) cannot be faulted with as he followed the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. (supra). No contrary decision was cited before us. Hence, we confirm the decision of the CIT(A). 9. Both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 10. The assessee has raised similar grounds in both the appeals which read as under:- 1. The order of the CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming part of the disallowa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
