TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1574
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under; ITA No 643/Ahd/2014 Assessment Year 2010-11 1.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming disallowance made by the AO of Rs. 69,777 being unpaid employees contribution to PF and Rs. 35,413/- being unpaid employees contribution to ESI on the alleged ground that the provisions of section 43B are not attracted. It is therefore prayed that the additions so made may kindly be deleted. 2.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming disallowance made u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D by AO to the extent of Rs. 35,12,759/- out of total disallowance of Rs. 45,91,759/- on the alleged ground of expenses in the nature of administrative expenses for the earning of exempt income. It is therefore prayed that the additions so made may kindly be deleted. 3.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in restricting depreciation on software @ 25% as against 60% claimed by the appellant. It is therefore prayed that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e shares are sold within 30 days of purchase even-though the such transactions are relates to the investment portfolios of the appellants. It is therefore prayed that the AO. may be directed to treat the gain on shares as short-term capital gain and to tax at the rate prescribed u/s. 111A of the Act. Your appellant craves liberty to add, to alter, to modify, to amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of on or before the hearing of appeal. 3. Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal; ITA No.932/Ahd/2014 Assessment Year 2010-11 1.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by allowing depreciation of Rs. 12.72 lacs and Insurance expenses of Rs. 1.50 lacs pertaining to cars which were not owned by the assessee and no evidence of exclusive usage for the purpose of business was produced. The provisions of sections 32(1) and 36(1)(i) were thus not satisfied. ' 2.The CIT(A) has overlooked the findings/reasoning in the assessment order and deleted the addition mainly on the ground that funds for the purchase of cars were provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that dominion over the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored to the above extent. The appellant craves, to leave, to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary. ITANo.2882/Ahd/2014 Assessment Year 2011-12 1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by allowing depreciation of Rs. 13.18 lacs and Insurance expenses of Rs. 0.70 lacs pertaining to cars which were not owned by the assessee and no evidence of exclusive usage for the purpose of business was produced. The provisions of sections 32(1) and 36(1)(i) were thus not satisfied. The CIT(A) has overlooked the findings/reasoning in the assessment order and deleted the addition mainly on the ground that funds for the purchase of cars were provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that dominion over the cars was not with the assessee and payment of legitimate RTO taxes was avoided. 2.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 10.96 Iacs u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(ii) despite the fact that the assessee had made substantial investments which earned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Transport Corporation in Tax Appeal No.637 of 2013. Whereas, the said issue is decided by Gujarat High Court and other High Courts that if the payment is made within the provisions of section 43B, the same is allowable. It is therefore prayed that the additions so made may kindly be deleted. 2.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming disallowance made u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) by AO to the extent of Rs. 55,40,921/(Rs. 65,40,921/- Less: Rs. 12,00,000/- offered by appellant) out of total disallowance of Rs. 90,60,923/- on the alleged ground of expenses in the nature of administrative expenses for the earning of exempt income. Whereas, the appellant furnished that investment in subsidiary companies and partnership firms are in the nature of business arrangement/strategies and for the purpose of commercial expediency. It is therefore prayed that the additions so made may kindly be deleted. 3.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in restricting depreciation on software @ 25% as against 60% claimed by the appellant. It is therefore prayed that AO may kindly be directed to allow depreciation @ 60% on computer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal; ITA No.914/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year 2012-13 1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,52,432/- made by AO on account of depreciation on motor car of Rs. 13,23,317/- and insurance on motor car of Rs. 1,29,115/- as the assessee has violated the condition laid down u/s 32 of the Act, the AO has rightly disallowed the claim of depreciation as the purpose of allowance of depreciation under section 32 of the Act, the twin condition of ownership and the assets used for the purpose of assessee's business must be satisfied. 2.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs. 35,20,002/- made by AO u/s 14A r.w.r 8D( of the Act, on account of interest expense, as the appellant is having huge interest income and borrowed funds are used for broking business. 3.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,19,85,613/- made by AO, on account of bad debts. The AO has rightly disallowed Rs. 1,19,85,613/-, since the condition laid down in section 36(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not satisfied by the assessee. . 4.The CIT(A) has erred in law and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6,323/-, Rs. 18,497/- and Rs. 10,785/- respectively. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance following the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). Assessee has challenged the disallowance for all the five assessment years before us. 9. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the common issue relating to disallowance u/s 43B for delay in depositing employee's provident fund is squarely covered against the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra). 10. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the orders of both the lower authorities. 11. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Assessee's first common grievance raising Ground No.1 of the appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2014-15 challenges the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the disallowance u/s 43B of the Act for delay in deposit of employees provident fund. Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly accepted that this issue stands squarely covered against the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 2012-13 For all these three assessment years Ld. A.O applied the method provided in Rule 8D of Income Tax rules and computed the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act on two counts namely disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and disallowance towards administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii). Assessee challenged the disallowance u/s 14A before Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the interest disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of I.T. rules observing that the assessee had earned net interest income during the year and also had sufficient interest free funds to make investments. Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on various judgments to delete the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act for the interest component. However Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance u/s 14A for the administrative expenses calculated @0.5% of average investments. 14. Now both the assessee and revenue are in appeal against the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) relating to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 15. As regards disallowance of proportionate interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I.T. rules deleted by Ld. CIT(A) at Rs. 10.78 lacs, Rs. 10.96 lacs and Rs. 35.20 lacs for Assessment Year 2010-11 to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....228/Ahd/2012. In the said decision, it was held as under:- "7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that CIT(A) while granting relief to the Assessee has given a finding that no nexus has been established by the A. O. with the amount incurred by the Assessee for earning the tax free income. He has further noted that in the Assessee's case the interest income was more than interest expense and thus the Assessee was having net positive interest income and therefore the same cannot be considered for disallowance and for which he placed reliance on the decision of Kolkatta Tribunal in the case of Trading Apartment Limited and the decision of Tribunal in the case Morgan Stanley India Securities Private Limited. He however considered the administrative expenses to be 0.5 of the average investments and disallowed the same. 8. Before us the Revenue could not bring any material on record to controvert the findings of CIT(A). We therefore find no reason to interfere the order of CIT(A). Thus this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. " In the instant case, the total interest expenditure claimed was Rs. 3,79,05,391/-. Out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n kitty, as held by this Court in CIT v. Abhishek Industries Limited, (2006) 286 ITR 1 and therefore, disallowance under section 14A was justified. 7. We do not find any merit in this submission. Judgment of this Court in Abhishek Industries (supra) was on the issue of allowability of interest paid on loans given to sister concerns, without interest. It was held that deduction for interest was permissible when loan was taken for business purpose and not for diverting the same to sister concern without having nexus with the business. Observations made therein have to be read in that context. In the present case, admittedly, the assessee did not make any claim for exemption. In such a situation, Section 14A could have no application." 5. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arise. 6. The appeal is dismissed". 19. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Amigo Securities Pvt. Ltd ITA Nos.1532 & 1533/Ahd/2009 also held in favour of the assessee that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is not for the interest expenditure if the assessee has sufficient interest free funds to cover up the alleged investments. Releva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....penses disallowed u/s 14A of the Act computed @0.5% of average investments. 24. We observe that for Assessment Year 2010-11 assessee has not offered any amount suo moto as disallowance for administrative expenses u/s 14A of the Act. However for Assessment Years 201112 and 2012-13 assessee has suo moto disallowed for Rs. 11,00,000/- and Rs. 12,00,000/- respectively towards administrative expenses disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I.T rules. 25. It was contended before us that the investment on which 0.5% administrative expenses disallowance has been computed majorly includes the investment in the partnership firm by the assessee, investment in unquoted shares and also brought forwarded investments in quoted shares. Perusal of the balance sheet also shows that assessee has not carried out major reshuffle in its investment portfolio and most of the investments are brought forwarded. Assessee is also engaged in the business of brokerage from shares and securities trading through National Stock Exchange and other depository services. Ld. A.O has also not pointed out any specific instance about any particular administrative expenses incurred specifically for managing the inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tentions and perused the records placed before us. Through common Ground No.3 in respective appeals for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15 assessee has challenges the orders of lower authorities restricting the depreciation on software license @25% as against 60% allowable to the assessee. 33. We find that similar type of case was adjudicated by Hon'ble I.T.A.T., Ahmedabad in the case of ACIT V/s Zydus Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, ITA No.1464/Ahd/2012 order dated 21.7.2016 wherein it was held as under; "14. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The issue raised in this ground by Revenue is against the action of ld. CIT(A) for disallowing depreciation on software @ 60% in place of 25% which are applicable for intangible asset. We observe that ld. Assessing Officer has treated the expenditure of Rs. 91,999/- towards purchase of software license as capital asset under the block of intangible assets eligible for depreciation @ 25% whereas ld. CIT(A) has also treated the expenditure of Rs. 91,999/- as capital expenditure but has categorized it along with computers and directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation @ 60% by observi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that assessee is itself engaged in trading of shares consistently held that such gain should be taxed as business income and not as Long Term/Short Term Capital Gain claimed by the assessee. Against the action of the Ld. A.O treating the gain from sale of equity shares as business income, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A). For Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed assessee's claim allowing the benefit of exemption for Long Term Capital Gain but as regards the Short Term Capital Gain direction was given to bifurcate the Short Term Capital Gain into two categories so as to calculate the capital gain as per the period of holding. In these cases where the period of holding was more than 30 days but less than one year claim of Short Term Capital Gain to be allowed and for remaining, where the period of holding was less than 30 days, the gain/loss was directed to be treated as business gain/loss. However for Assessment Year 2012-13 Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Kalpesh Shah V/s ACIT ITA No. 2818/Ahd/2011 dated 31.10.12 give away the procedure of calculating the gain considering the period of 30 days thus allowing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... above facts. submissions. Explanations and decisions of Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals, it is prayed that the appellant company has made investment and the activity may kindly be treated as investment and not business. Surplus/Deficit on shares investment may kindly be treated as long-term/short term capital gain/loss and the decision of AO to treat the same as business income may kindly be cancelled. 39. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also referred to the Circular No.6/2016 dated 29.02.2016 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes which relates to the issue of taxability of surplus on sale of shares and securities - Capital Gains or Business Income - Instructions in order to reduce litigation. Referring to the Circular it was submitted that the assessee has been consistently showing the Short Term and Long Term Capital Gain from sale of shares hold for long term purposes. 40. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the orders of Ld. A.O for respective years wherein the Ld. A.O has referred to various judgments in order to prove that the alleged gain of Long Term and Short Term Capital Gain is actually the business income of the assessee since ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd litigation in the past. 2. Over the years, the courts have laid down different parameters to distinguish the shares held as investments from the shares held as stock-intrade. The Central Board of Direct Taxes ('CBDT) has also, through Instruction No. 1827, dated August 31, 1989 and Circular No.4 of 2007 dated June 15, 2007, summarized the said principles for guidance of the field formations . 3. Disputes, however, continue to exist on the application of these principles to the facts of an individual case since the taxpayers find it difficult to prove the intention in acquiring such shares/securities. In this background, while recognizing that no universal principal in absolute terms can be laid down to decide the character of income from sale of shares and securities (i.e. whether the same is in the nature of capital gain or business income), CBDT realizing that major part of shares/securities transactions takes place in respect of the listed ones and with a view to reduce litigation and uncertainty in the matter, in partial modification to the aforesaid Circulars, further instructs that the Assessing Officers in holding whether the surplus generated from s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for computing the gain for shares held for 30 days or less as business income. Ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim for Assessment Year2012-13 observed as follows; "10.3. The contentions of the learned A.R are that the appellant company is a broker of shares and securities on behalf of clients, apart from the said business, it made its own investment our of own funds in shares/securities during the year the long term capital gain of' Rs. 938,358/- was earned on the shares and the short term capita! gain of Rs. 56,86,282/- was earned on the shares and therefore in the light of the decisions relied upon treating the capital gains as business income was not warranted. 10.4. I have considered the facts of the matter. Apart from the stock braking business, appellant earned income on the purchase and sale of shares/securities as investment and interest income. 10.5 Appellant is having interest income of Rs. 14.69 crores as against interest expenditure of Rs. 8.06 crores, which shows that borrowed funds were not utilized for purchase of shares/securities. Also, Appellant has shown investment activity separately in the books of accounts. 10.6 Dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., circumstances and jurisdictional tribunal decision In case of Shri Kalpesh C Shah (Supra), it is held that there is no provision under the Act to indicate that the holding period of shares less than 30 days is relevant to decide transaction made' in nature of trade and not as investment activity. Therefore, I am inclined to accept the contention of Appellant and direct the AO to treat short term capital gain and long term capital gain on shares / security as investment activity. I also direct AO to allow set off of brought forward Short term capital loss of AY 201'1-12 from short term capital gain of current year These grounds of appeal are allowed" 43. We find that the issue relating to taxability of surplus on shares and securities depends on various facts and circumstances. In the instant case the assessee is itself into the share trading business, broking house, depository services etc. From perusal of the balance sheets we find that the equity shares held by the assessee are categorized into two parts. Under the head "Investments" the equity shares for various companies are shown at "cost price" whereas under the head Inventories the equity shares held by the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee of showing the gain from sale of equity shares under the head Long Term and Short Term Capital Gain needs to be accepted. We accordingly order so and allow the respective Ground No.4 of the assessee's appeal for Assessment Years 2010-11and 2011-12 and dismiss Ground No.7 & 5 of Revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11 , 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. 47. Now we take up the issue raised in revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-1, 2011-12 and 2012-13 relating to disallowance of depreciation and insurance of motor cars in the name of Directors. 48. Brief facts relating to this are that depreciation and Insurance on motor car is claimed in the books of accounts. Motor cars were in the name of Directors. Funds were provided by the company. Motor cars were used for assessee's business purposes. Ld. A.O disallowed the depreciation since the car were in the name of the company. Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim. Now revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 49. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supported the order of Ld. A.O. 50. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee relying on the finding of Ld. CIT(A) also submitted that the funds were provided by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Mills Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Dy. C.LT., Range-l , Ahmedabad, on similar facts, decided the issue in favour of the assessee, by holding "It is not disputed that funds for purchases of the car were provided by the assessee company which is also reflected in the accounts of the assessee company. In our opinion, when the car is actually used for the purpose of business of the company depreciation thereon cannot be denied. " As regards the A.O's observation that the appellant failed to establish that the vehicles were used by the company, it is seen that there are various judicial pronouncements to the effect that use means kept ready for use and not actually use. The case laws cited at 123 ITR 404 (Delhi), 170 Taxman 407 (MP), 187 Taxman 442 (Mad), 201 Taxman 666 (P & H), 198 Taxman 470 & 199 Taxman 273 are in favour of the appellant. Moreover, no material has been brought on record to show that the vehicle expenses claimed were not genuine. Having considered the facts of the matter and the case laws on the issue impugned disallowance of depreciation on car and the insurance premium is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed". 52. We further observed tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the addition. This ground of assessee's appeal is allowed. " 53. We therefore in the given facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the judgments referred find no inconsistency in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) allowing the claim of depreciation and insurance expenses on motor cars held in the name of Directors. Accordingly Ground No.1 raised by the revenue in appeals for Assessment Year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands dismissed. 54. Now we take up the issue raised in revenue's appeal challenges the Ld. CIT(A) finding deleting the disallowance of bad debt (trading loss) at Rs. 42.20 lacs, Rs. 1.58 lacs and Rs. 1,19,85,613/- for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 respectively. 55. Brief facts relating to this issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 Ld. A.O observed that the assessee has claimed bad debts representing the principle amount of cost of shares/stock transaction on each defaulting clients. It was contended by the assessee that the alleged bad debtor if not allowable as bad debts u/s 36(2)(vii) of the Act, the said amount may be allowed as trading loss. However Ld. A.O was not sat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench and also observing that facts are similar to those for Assessment Years 2010-11,2011-12 and 2012-13, find no reason to interfere in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of bad debts (treating loss) at Rs. Rs. 42.20 lacs, Rs. 1.58 lacs and Rs. 1,19,85,613/-. Ground No.3 of the revenue's appeal for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 stands dismissed. 60. Now we take up Revenue's next grievance raised for Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 challenging the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act made on payment of V-Sat charges/ lease line charges/NSDL charges at Rs. 7.89, Rs. 2.68 lacs and Rs. 5.41 lacs respectively. 61. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Co-ordinate Tribunal in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2009-10 vide ITA No.1577/Ahd/2012 order dated 22.01.2016. 62. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of Ld. A.O but could not controvert the submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. 63. We have heard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he result the grounds No. 5 & 4 raised by the revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 is dismissed. 65. Now we take up common issue raised in revenue's appeal challenging the deletion of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on sub-brokerage/commission at Rs. 52.16 lacs, Rs. 82.11 lacs for Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively. 66. Brief facts of the case are that sub-brokerage/commission for IPO was paid by the assessee without deduction of tax at source u/s 194H of the Act. Ld. A.O. was of the view that Initial Public Offer (IPO) cannot be regarded as transaction in securities and the application made for IPO cannot be regarded as securities within the meaning of Section 2(h) of Securities Contract (Regulation) Act 1956 till the shares are allotted and delivered to the person and accordingly made disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) at Rs. 52.16 lacs and Rs. 82.11 lacs for Assessment Year 2010-11 and2012-13respectively. Assessee succeeded in appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Now revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 67. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the orders of Ld. A.O. 68. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13) 33 taxmann.com 52 (Delhi-Trib.) wherein the Tribunal observed as under:- 12. Ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions made before ld. CIT(A) and submitted that in view of the provisions of Explanation (i) to section 194H read with section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, no TDS was required to be made on services related to security transaction. In this regard, ld. Counsel also referred to page 106 of paper book to demonstrate that HDFC was also not deducting TDS in respect of commission paid relating to mutual funds. In the alternative ld. Counsel relied on the decision of Spl. Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transporters vs. Addl. CIT, 136 ITD 23 (SB) and submitted that in view of the majority view of Spl. Bench, since nothing was payable at the year end, therefore, no TDS was required to be made. 13. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the record of the case. 14. The only point on which ld. CIT(A)'s order has been assailed is that the TDS was not made in terms of section 194H. Section 194H deals with provisions relating to TDS on commission or brokerage. Commission or brokerage h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ission paid by it to other persons whose services were taken for earning commission was also outside the purview of provisions of section 194H. The definition uses the term "in relation to" which clearly implies that whenever any commission or brokerage is paid in relation to securities then it would be outside the ambit of section 194H. Admittedly, the assessee had paid sub-brokerage in relation to securities (mutual fund) and, therefore, it was outside the ambit of section 194H. We, therefore, do not find any reason with the order of ld. CIT(A). 17. In the result, the Department's appeal is dismissed. 71. We find that the issue is squarely covered in assessee's favour by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench referred herein above. Ld. Departmental Representative failed to bring any contrary judgment in favour of the revenue. We therefore respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of ITO V/s Mittal Investment & Co (supra) find no infirmity in the finding of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly Ground No. 6& 5 of revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively stands dismissed. 72. Now we take up next common issue for Assessment Y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bench in the case of ACIT & Anr. Vs. Vineet Investment Pvt. Ltd & Anr. 165 ITD 27 (Delhi)(SB). 3.1 We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Our view is supported by the decision of the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in case of Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No.1816/Ahd/2011 where the decisions of the hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Delhi High Court were also referred for deciding the issue in favour of the assessee. The relevant operative para of the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Arvind Ltd. (supra) is reproduced hereunder: "6. We notice that issue is evolved and developed by certain judicial precedents. We find at the first instance that the identical issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Alembic Ltd. (supra) where the substantial question of law on the point as to whether adjustment made on account of disallowance under S.14A of the can be similarly made for the purposes of computation of 'book profit' under S.115JB of the Act was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. We also take note of decision of the Special Bench rendered in ACIT vs. Vireet I....