2021 (4) TMI 41

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onal Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) has observed that "the purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. If, for example, as a result of a judicial decision given while the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, it is found that a non-taxable item is taxed or a permissible deduction is denied, we do not see any reason why the assessee should be prevented from raising that question before the tribunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of that item". Answering the question posed before it in affirmative, their Lordships held that on the facts found by the authorities below, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 45,16,437/-. In this regard, our attention was invited by the ld. AR towards the balance sheet of the assessee company, whose copy has been placed at page 30 of the paper book. As against the Shareholders funds' of Rs. 397.86 crore, the value of investments taken by the AO in the assessment order for the purpose of making disallowance is only Rs. 39.94 crore. 7. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom), has held that where an assessee possessed sufficient interest free funds of its own which were generated in the course of relevant financial year, apart from substantial shareholders' funds, presumption gets established that the investments in sister concerns were made .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... requested that only the investments which yielded exempt income should be considered for the purpose of calculation. 10. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ACB India Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del) has held that the average value of investments, for the purposes of Rule 8D(2)(iii), should be confined to those securities in respect of which exempt income is earned and not the total investments. Similar view has been taken by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB). In view of the afore referred precedents, we set aside the impugned order to this extent and remit the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for recomputing the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X