2020 (9) TMI 91

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The appeal has been admitted on 10.6.2019 on the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the investment made in sister concerns by the assessee are not liable for disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D when the provisions of the said section does not provide for any such exception? and (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right and justified in remitting back the issue of disallowance under Section 14A to Assessing Officer by directing him to exclude own funds in the form of reserve and surplus when the assessee was maintaining mixed bag of funds and fai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er as to what has to be done during de novo consideration. 6. The relevant portion of the impugned order of the Tribunal namely paragraph 11 reads as follows : "In view of the above judgments, the Assessing Officer has to consider the assessee's own fund i.e capital and reserves as available for investment, which yields exempted income and thereafter he shall apply the formula in Rule 8D and also exclude investments in subsidiaries as held by the above order of Coordinate Bench. With this observation, we remit the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Hence, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes." 7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue would rely upon the decision of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the assessee to state that if the Tribunal had chosen to remand the matter, it should have made an open remand and should not have qualified the remand, which, in fact, was the decision taken in the case of Beach Miners Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [ITA.No.2110/Mds/2014 dated 06.8.2015]. 10. Per contra, Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - assessee has relied upon "(i) the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT [reported in (2015) 372 ITR 0694]; (ii) another decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Moderate Leasing and Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. [reported in 2018-TIOL-2459-HC-Del-IT]; and (iii) the order of the Hon'ble Supreme ....