ACIT, MUMBAI V. K RAHEJA CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 6083/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around the disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning expenses incurred in relation to earning exempt income. The Assessing Officer had initially made a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, which was contested by K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, leading to the Revenue's appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision emphasized that only those investments which yielded exempt income should be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D, aligning with judicial precedents and the principles laid down in the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831934 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (82 taxmann.com 415), Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) v Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. [2018](95 taxmann.com 250), Cargo Motors (P.) Ltd V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ([2022] 145 taxmann.com 641), Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ([2017] 81 taxmann.com 111), MM Aqua Technologies Vs CIT (436 ITR 582), Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc Vs CIT (279 ITR 310), Bajaj Capital Ventures (P) Ltd. (2022) 141 taxmann.com 1 (Mumbai-Trib), Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd (2022) 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi), Cheminvest Ltd v. CIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 118/234 Taxman 761/378 ITR 33, Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360, Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association [1992] 3 SCC 1, IL & FS Energy Development Co. Ltd. (supra)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANSHU JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: PARESH SONDAGAR
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 115JB

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 6083/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 ACIT Kautilya Bhavan, BKC Mumbai-400051. Vs. K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. C-30, Block-G, Raheja Tower, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AAACP 0522 B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Paresh Sondagar, CA Revenue by : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25/11/2025 Date of pronouncement : 22/01/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 52, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2020-21, raising following grounds: 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) right in law and facts of the case by deleting the disallowance us 14A of the IT Act, relying on the premises that there was no exempt income received by the assessee during the year under consideration, without Printed from counselvise.com appreciating the direction contains in the Circular No.5 of 2014 dated 11.02.2014 of CBDT? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) right in law and facts of the case by deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thereby overlooking th Rule 8D of the 1 T Rulcs. 1962 which has to be necessarily followed whenever a disallowance u/s 14A was to be made 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) right in law and facts of the case by deleting the addition of disallowance u's book profit of the assessee without appreciating the clause (f) of explanation 1 to section 11SJB(2) of the IT Act 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee is a domestic company engaged in the construction activity and is also running a hotel at Madh Marve Road, Malad in the name and style “The Resort”. The assessee is also engaged in various business activity i.e. Real Estate Development, leasing of properties etc. The assessee company owns a 5 star hotel at Mumbai and is also a partner at various partnership firms which are in the business of real estate development, hospitality etc. 2.1 The assessee filed its return of income at Rs.1,94,15,430/- the said return, the assessee had Rs.1,45,32,176/- and Rs.740/ 1961 (in short ‘the Act’ return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Act were issued and complied with. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 25.03.2022, the Assessing Officer however computed disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D at Rs.4,17,30,725/- K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 6083/MUM/2025 appreciating the direction contains in the Circular No.5 of 2014 dated 11.02.2014 of CBDT? Whether the Ld. CIT(A) right in law and facts of the case by deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thereby overlooking the computational procedure laid down in Rule 8D of the 1 T Rulcs. 1962 which has to be necessarily followed whenever a disallowance u/s 14A was to be made Whether the Ld. CIT(A) right in law and facts of the case by deleting the addition of disallowance u's 14A of the IT Act to the book profit of the assessee without appreciating the clause (f) of explanation 1 to section 11SJB(2) of the IT Act Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee is a domestic company engaged in the construction activity and is also running a hotel at Madh Marve Road, Malad in the name and style “The Resort”. The assessee is also engaged in various business tivity i.e. Real Estate Development, leasing of properties etc. The assessee company owns a 5 star hotel at Mumbai and is also a partner at various partnership firms which are in the business of real estate development, hospitality etc. iled its return of income declaring total income and book profit of Rs.56,91,386/ id return, the assessee had suo-motu and Rs.740/- u/s 14A of the Income 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) while computing the normal income. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Act were issued and complied with. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 25.03.2022, the cer however computed disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D and made addition for balance amount other K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. 2 ITA No. 6083/MUM/2025 appreciating the direction contains in the Circular No.5 of 2014 Whether the Ld. CIT(A) right in law and facts of the case by deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 e computational procedure laid down in Rule 8D of the 1 T Rulcs. 1962 which has to be necessarily followed whenever a disallowance u/s 14A was to be made Whether the Ld. CIT(A) right in law and facts of the case by 14A of the IT Act to the book profit of the assessee without appreciating the clause (f) of Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee is a domestic company engaged in the construction activity and is also running a hotel at Madh Marve Road, Malad in the name and style “The Resort”. The assessee is also engaged in various business tivity i.e. Real Estate Development, leasing of properties etc. The assessee company owns a 5 star hotel at Mumbai and is also a partner at various partnership firms which are in the business of declaring total income and book profit of Rs.56,91,386/-. While filing motu disallowed u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, ) while computing the normal income. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Act were issued and complied with. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 25.03.2022, the cer however computed disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D and made addition for balance amount other Printed from counselvise.com than already offered by the assessee Rs.2,71,98,549/- while computing income under provisions of Act and also disal made u/s 14A of the Act while computing book profit. 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted both the additions. 4. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above 5. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record dividend income of Rs.6,65,50,230/ income, the assessee following the Rule 8D 1962( in short the Rules) which had yielded dividend income during the year under consideration. The assessee also made disallowance of Rs.740/ directly related to the earning of the dividend incom The Assessing Officer however is of the view that while computing the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) the assessee should take into consideration monthly average of all the investments and n the investment which had CIT(A), however following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (82 taxmann.com 415), under normal provisions of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 6083/MUM/2025 than already offered by the assessee, while computing income under and also disallowance of Rs.2,71,98,549/ made u/s 14A of the Act while computing book profit. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted both the additions. the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. In the case, the assessee earned dividend income of Rs.6,65,50,230/-. Against said exempted he assessee following the Rule 8D of Income 1962( in short the Rules) made disallowance @ 1% of the assets yielded dividend income during the year under consideration. The assessee also made disallowance of Rs.740/ directly related to the earning of the dividend income. The Assessing Officer however is of the view that while computing under Rule 8D(2)(ii) the assessee should take into consideration monthly average of all the investments and n the investment which had yielded the exempted income however following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (82 deleted the disallowance made under normal provisions of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) also disallowed K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 6083/MUM/2025 amounting to while computing income under the normal lowance of Rs.2,71,98,549/- was made u/s 14A of the Act while computing book profit. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted both the additions. the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by way We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused . In the case, the assessee earned Against said exempted of Income-tax Rules, nce @ 1% of the assets yielded dividend income during the year under consideration. The assessee also made disallowance of Rs.740/- e. The Assessing Officer however is of the view that while computing under Rule 8D(2)(ii) the assessee should take into consideration monthly average of all the investments and not only yielded the exempted income, but the Ld. however following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (82 deleted the disallowance made by the ld AO ) also disallowed Printed from counselvise.com the addition/disallowance made while computing book profit. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 7.2 The appellant has broadly raised the following contentions: (i) The appellant had earned an exempt dividend inc during the year under consideration and made a suo moto disallowance of Rs. 1,45,32,176 under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, considering only investments from which exempt income was actually earned. The details of exempt dividend income Particulars JUHU BEACH RESORT LTD K RAHEJA IT PARK (HYDERABAD) P SUNDEW PROPERTIES LTD INTIME PROPERTIES LTD INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT Zodiac Clothing Company Ltd Prism Cement Ltd Kothari Products Ltd SHOPPERS STOP LIMITED DLF Limited Balaji Telefilms Ltd Ambuja Cements Ltd JM Financial Limited FAERING CAPITAL INDIA EVOLVING INDIA VALUE Total (ii) A working for the same suo moto disallowance computed was submitted which is reproduced as under: Particulars JUHU BEACH RESORT LTD K RAHEJA IT PARK (HYDERABAD) P SUNDEW INTIME PROPERTIES LTD INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT Zodiac Clothing Company Ltd Prism Cement Ltd Kothari Products Ltd SHOPPERS STOP LIMITED DLF Limited Balaji Ambuja Cements Ltd K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 6083/MUM/2025 the addition/disallowance made while computing book profit. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: The appellant has broadly raised the following contentions: (i) The appellant had earned an exempt dividend income of Rs. 6,65,50,231 during the year under consideration and made a suo moto disallowance of Rs. 1,45,32,176 under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, considering only investments from which exempt income was actually earned. The details of exempt dividend income earned were submitted as under: Particulars Amount JUHU BEACH RESORT LTD 5,82,70,710 K RAHEJA IT PARK (HYDERABAD) P 50,000 SUNDEW PROPERTIES LTD 10,000 INTIME PROPERTIES LTD 3,35,820 INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 45,833 Zodiac Clothing Company Ltd 33,151 Prism Cement Ltd 65,000 Kothari Products Ltd 4,62,717 SHOPPERS STOP LIMITED 25,36,653 DLF Limited 73,200 Balaji Telefilms Ltd 16,000 Ambuja Cements Ltd 7,500 JM Financial Limited 45,000 FAERING CAPITAL INDIA EVOLVING 43,95,827 INDIA VALUE FUND SCHEME 'B' 2,02,820 Total 6,65,50,231 (ii) A working for the same suo moto disallowance computed was submitted which is reproduced as under: Particulars Amount JUHU BEACH RESORT LTD 96,12,85,508 K RAHEJA IT PARK (HYDERABAD) P 50,000 SUNDEW PROPERTIES LTD 0 INTIME PROPERTIES LTD 0 INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 13,56,910 Zodiac Clothing Company Ltd 83,33,296 Prism Cement Ltd 33,97,940 Kothari Products Ltd 3,87,86,642 SHOPPERS STOP LIMITED 32,58,86,651 DLF Limited 20,02,864 Balaji Telefilms Ltd 18,89,415 Ambuja Cements Ltd 12,26,649 K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. 4 ITA No. 6083/MUM/2025 the addition/disallowance made while computing book profit. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: The appellant has broadly raised the following contentions: ome of Rs. 6,65,50,231 during the year under consideration and made a suo moto disallowance of Rs. 1,45,32,176 under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, considering only investments from which exempt income was actually earned. The details of Amount 5,82,70,710 50,000 10,000 3,35,820 45,833 33,151 65,000 4,62,717 25,36,653 73,200 16,000 7,500 45,000 43,95,827 2,02,820 6,65,50,231 (ii) A working for the same suo moto disallowance computed was submitted Amount 96,12,85,508 50,000 13,56,910 83,33,296 33,97,940 3,87,86,642 32,58,86,651 20,02,864 18,89,415 12,26,649 Printed from counselvise.com JM Financial Limited FAERING CAPITAL INDIA EVOLVING FAERING CAPITAL INDIA EVOLVING INDIA VALUE FUND SCHEME 'B' Total Average Disallowance under section 14A @ 1% of investments Add: Direct Expenditure Disallowance u/s. 14A Less: Suo Moto Disallowance Difference iii) The appellant submitted that the AO satisfaction under Section 14A(2) of the Act. (iv) Without prejudice to the above, the appellant contended that the amount of disallowance must be restricted upto the exempt income earned during the relevant year. For this Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) v Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. [2018](95 taxmann.com 250) wherein it was held that while computing expenditure allocable for ear as per the formulae prescribed in Rule 8D, investments which have not yielded exempt income must be excluded and that provisions of Rule 8D cannot override the provisions of section 14A of the Act and disallowance under section 14A of th of exempt income. (v) Without prejudice to the above, the appellant contended that for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, only those investments are to be considered from which exempt income under consideration. For this proposition the appellant relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cargo Motors (P.) Ltd V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ([2022] 145 taxmann.com 641) wherein it held that while calculating disallowance made under Rule 8D @ 0.5% of the average investments, only those investments have to be considered which has yielded exempt income during the previous year. (vi) Without prejudice to the above, the appellant co moto disallowance made is correct as per law. For the proposition, the appellant relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ([2017] 81 t cannot be applied mechanically and must be consistent with the facts of K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 6083/MUM/2025 JM Financial Limited 61,18,823 FAERING CAPITAL INDIA EVOLVING 4,86,83,106 FAERING CAPITAL INDIA EVOLVING 2,55,45,278 INDIA VALUE FUND SCHEME 'B' 2,80,67,857 1,45,26,30,939 Average Investment 1,45,31,43,595 Disallowance under section 14A @ 1% of investments 1,45,31,436 Add: Direct Expenditure 740 Disallowance u/s. 14A 1,45,32,176 Less: Suo Moto Disallowance (1,45,32,176) Difference - iii) The appellant submitted that the AO did not record the mandatory satisfaction under Section 14A(2) of the Act. (iv) Without prejudice to the above, the appellant contended that the amount of disallowance must be restricted upto the exempt income earned during the relevant year. For this proposition the appellant relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) v Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. [2018](95 taxmann.com 250) wherein it was held that while computing expenditure allocable for earning exempt income as per the formulae prescribed in Rule 8D, investments which have not yielded exempt income must be excluded and that provisions of Rule 8D cannot override the provisions of section 14A of the Act and disallowance under section 14A of the Act is only warranted when there is actual receipt of exempt income. (v) Without prejudice to the above, the appellant contended that for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, only those investments are to be considered from which exempt income has been received during the year under consideration. For this proposition the appellant relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cargo Motors (P.) Ltd V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ([2022] 145 taxmann.com 641) wherein it held that while calculating disallowance made under Rule 8D @ 0.5% of the average investments, only those investments have to be considered which has yielded exempt income during the previous year. (vi) Without prejudice to the above, the appellant contended that the suo moto disallowance made is correct as per law. For the proposition, the appellant relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ([2017] 81 taxmann.com 111) wherein it was held that Rule 8D cannot be applied mechanically and must be consistent with the facts of K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. 5 ITA No. 6083/MUM/2025 61,18,823 4,86,83,106 2,55,45,278 2,80,67,857 1,45,26,30,939 1,45,31,43,595 1,45,31,436 1,45,32,176 (1,45,32,176) did not record the mandatory (iv) Without prejudice to the above, the appellant contended that the amount of disallowance must be restricted upto the exempt income earned during proposition the appellant relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) v Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. [2018](95 taxmann.com 250) wherein it was ning exempt income as per the formulae prescribed in Rule 8D, investments which have not yielded exempt income must be excluded and that provisions of Rule 8D cannot override the provisions of section 14A of the Act and disallowance e Act is only warranted when there is actual receipt (v) Without prejudice to the above, the appellant contended that for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, only those investments are to has been received during the year under consideration. For this proposition the appellant relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cargo Motors (P.) Ltd V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ([2022] 145 taxmann.com 641) wherein it was held that while calculating disallowance made under Rule 8D @ 0.5% of the average investments, only those investments have to be considered which ntended that the suo moto disallowance made is correct as per law. For the proposition, the appellant relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner of axmann.com 111) wherein it was held that Rule 8D cannot be applied mechanically and must be consistent with the facts of Printed from counselvise.com each case. Since, a suo moto disallowance is made, it is possible that the additional disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) might not be j appellant relied on various other Tribunal order and High Court decisions. (vii) In Ground No. 2, the appellant contended that the Ld. AO erred in disallowing Rs. 2,71,98,549/ profits under section (viii) Further in relation to the explanation to section 14A inserted vide Finance Act 2022, the appellant contented that the said Explanation comes into force only with effect from AY 2022 not retrospectively. In this regard the assessee has relied on the following decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: a) MM Aqua Technologies Vs CIT (436 ITR 582) b) Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc Vs CIT (279 ITR 310) Also, appellant has relied on various other tribunal. 7.3 I have considered the facts of the case, statement of facts, grounds of appeal and submissions made by the appellant. In the above background, the grounds of appeal are adjudicated as follows. 7.4. The submission noted that the appellant has categorically stated in its reply and the AO has also mentioned in the assessment order that the appellant has earned exempt income of Rs. 6,65,50,230/ made disallowances of Rs. 1,45,32,176/ relation the earning such exempt income. 7.5. As regards the issue of disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act is concerned when there is no exempt income or the exempt income than the disallowance calculated as per Rule 8D, the various Judicial Authorities have held that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. However, in this case the disallowance is much less than the exempt income. 7.6. The appellant h recorded by the AO. I have gone through with the assessment order and examined that the AO has recorded satisfaction while making disallowances u/s 14A of the IT Act. The AO has not straight away resorted to Rule 8D. He has considered the books of accounts and arrived at an objective satisfaction that the appellant's claim is incorrect. Such satisfaction has been reached and recorded only after the claim of the appellant has been verified. This issue is, th that the AO has recorded his satisfaction before rightly invoking the provisions of Rule 8D. However, as regards the quantum of disallowance, my observations are contained in the following portion of the ord K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 6083/MUM/2025 each case. Since, a suo moto disallowance is made, it is possible that the additional disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) might not be j appellant relied on various other Tribunal order and High Court decisions. (vii) In Ground No. 2, the appellant contended that the Ld. AO erred in disallowing Rs. 2,71,98,549/- u/s 14A of the Act while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act. (viii) Further in relation to the explanation to section 14A inserted vide Finance Act 2022, the appellant contented that the said Explanation comes into force only with effect from AY 2022-23 i.e. effective prospectively and ectively. In this regard the assessee has relied on the following decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: a) MM Aqua Technologies Vs CIT (436 ITR 582) b) Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc Vs CIT (279 ITR 310) Also, appellant has relied on various other decisions of High court and 7.3 I have considered the facts of the case, statement of facts, grounds of appeal and submissions made by the appellant. In the above background, the grounds of appeal are adjudicated as follows. 7.4. The submissions made by the appellant have been examined. It is noted that the appellant has categorically stated in its reply and the AO has also mentioned in the assessment order that the appellant has earned exempt income of Rs. 6,65,50,230/-. Whereas the appellant h made disallowances of Rs. 1,45,32,176/- towards the expenses incurred in relation the earning such exempt income. 7.5. As regards the issue of disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act is concerned when there is no exempt income or the exempt income than the disallowance calculated as per Rule 8D, the various Judicial Authorities have held that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. However, in this case the disallowance is much less than the exempt income. 7.6. The appellant has also raised the issue that satisfaction was not recorded by the AO. I have gone through with the assessment order and examined that the AO has recorded satisfaction while making disallowances u/s 14A of the IT Act. The AO has not straight away resorted to Rule 8D. He has considered the books of accounts and arrived at an objective satisfaction that the appellant's claim is incorrect. Such satisfaction has been reached and recorded only after the claim of the appellant has been verified. This issue is, therefore, decided against the appellant as I find that the AO has recorded his satisfaction before rightly invoking the provisions of Rule 8D. However, as regards the quantum of disallowance, my observations are contained in the following portion of the ord K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. 6 ITA No. 6083/MUM/2025 each case. Since, a suo moto disallowance is made, it is possible that the additional disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) might not be justified. The appellant relied on various other Tribunal order and High Court decisions. (vii) In Ground No. 2, the appellant contended that the Ld. AO erred in u/s 14A of the Act while computing the book (viii) Further in relation to the explanation to section 14A inserted vide Finance Act 2022, the appellant contented that the said Explanation comes 23 i.e. effective prospectively and ectively. In this regard the assessee has relied on the following b) Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc Vs CIT (279 ITR 310) decisions of High court and 7.3 I have considered the facts of the case, statement of facts, grounds of appeal and submissions made by the appellant. In the above background, s made by the appellant have been examined. It is noted that the appellant has categorically stated in its reply and the AO has also mentioned in the assessment order that the appellant has earned . Whereas the appellant has suo-moto towards the expenses incurred in 7.5. As regards the issue of disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act is concerned when there is no exempt income or the exempt income is less than the disallowance calculated as per Rule 8D, the various Judicial Authorities have held that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. However, in this case the disallowance is much less than the as also raised the issue that satisfaction was not recorded by the AO. I have gone through with the assessment order and examined that the AO has recorded satisfaction while making disallowances u/s 14A of the IT Act. The AO has not straight away resorted to Rule 8D. He has considered the books of accounts and arrived at an objective satisfaction that the appellant's claim is incorrect. Such satisfaction has been reached and recorded only after the claim of the appellant has erefore, decided against the appellant as I find that the AO has recorded his satisfaction before rightly invoking the provisions of Rule 8D. However, as regards the quantum of disallowance, my observations are contained in the following portion of the order. Printed from counselvise.com 7.7. The explanation of sec. 14A inserted by the Finance Act, 2022 can be treated to be clarificatory in nature, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. in ITA No. 204/2022 & CM APPL. 31445/2022 dated 20.07.2022 treated to be retrospective. 7.8. It is pertinent to point out that vide the Finance Act 2022 the following Explanation was inserted in section 14A w.e.f 01.04.2022: Explanation. For the removal of doubts, it is her notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the provisions of this section shall apply and shall be deemed to have always applied in a has not accrued or arisen or has not been received during the previous year case w under this Act. relevant to an assessment year and the expenditure has been incurred during the said previous year in relation to such income not forming part of the total income.\" 7.9. The legislative section 14A of the Act was to clarify that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the provisions of this section shall apply and shall be deemed to have always applied in a ca not accrued or arisen or has not been received during the previous year relevant to an assessment year and the expenditure has been incurred during the said previous year in relation to such exempt income. 7.10. However, the Hon' the case of Bajaj Capital Ventures (P) Ltd. (2022) 141 taxmann.com 1 (Mumbai-Trib) has held that the amendment by way of insertion of the aforesaid explanation was prospective in nature and that prior to 1 no disallowance could be made under section 14A with respect to expenditure incurred by assessee to earn exempt income, when no exempt income was earned during relevant assessment year. The relevant extract of the said decision is reproduced as un \"7. We find that there is no dispute about the fact that the assessee did not have any tax exempt income during the relevant previous year and that the period before us pertains to the period prior to insertion of explanation to section 14A. In this v co-ordinate benches, following Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment in the case of Cheminvest Ltd v. CIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 118/234 Taxman 761/378 ITR 33, we uphold the plea of the assessee that n under section 14A was and in the circumstances of the case. The plea of the Assessing Officer is thus rejected\". 7.11. The same view that the insertion of the explanation in section 14A is prospective in nature has also been held by the Hon' the case of Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd (2022) 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi). The relevant extract is reproduced as under: \"8. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the amendment of section K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 6083/MUM/2025 7.7. The explanation of sec. 14A inserted by the Finance Act, 2022 can be treated to be clarificatory in nature, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. in ITA No. 204/2022 & CM APPL. 31445/2022 dated 20.07.2022 has held that the provisions cannot be treated to be retrospective. 7.8. It is pertinent to point out that vide the Finance Act 2022 the following Explanation was inserted in section 14A w.e.f 01.04.2022: Explanation. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the provisions of this section shall apply and shall be deemed to have always applied in a has not accrued or arisen or has not been received during the previous year case where the income, not forming part of the total income under this Act. relevant to an assessment year and the expenditure has been incurred during the said previous year in relation to such income not forming part of the total income.\" 7.9. The legislative intent behind insertion of the aforesaid Explanation to section 14A of the Act was to clarify that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the provisions of this section shall apply and shall be deemed to have always applied in a case where exempt income has not accrued or arisen or has not been received during the previous year relevant to an assessment year and the expenditure has been incurred during the said previous year in relation to such exempt income. 7.10. However, the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai vide its order dated 29.06.2022 in the case of Bajaj Capital Ventures (P) Ltd. (2022) 141 taxmann.com 1 Trib) has held that the amendment by way of insertion of the aforesaid explanation was prospective in nature and that prior to 1 no disallowance could be made under section 14A with respect to expenditure incurred by assessee to earn exempt income, when no exempt income was earned during relevant assessment year. The relevant extract of the said decision is reproduced as under: \"7. We find that there is no dispute about the fact that the assessee did not have any tax exempt income during the relevant previous year and that the period before us pertains to the period prior to insertion of explanation to section 14A. In this view of thematter, and in the light of consistent stand by ordinate benches, following Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment in the case of Cheminvest Ltd v. CIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 118/234 Taxman 761/378 ITR 33, we uphold the plea of the assessee that n under section 14A was and in the circumstances of the case. The plea of the Assessing Officer is thus rejected\". 7.11. The same view that the insertion of the explanation in section 14A is prospective in nature has also been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd (2022) 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi). The relevant extract is reproduced as under: \"8. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the amendment of section K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. 7 ITA No. 6083/MUM/2025 7.7. The explanation of sec. 14A inserted by the Finance Act, 2022 can be treated to be clarificatory in nature, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. in ITA No. 204/2022 & CM APPL. has held that the provisions cannot be 7.8. It is pertinent to point out that vide the Finance Act 2022 the following eby clarified that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the provisions of this section shall apply and shall be deemed to have always applied in a has not accrued or arisen or has not been received during the here the income, not forming part of the total income under this Act. relevant to an assessment year and the expenditure has been incurred during the said previous year in relation to such income not intent behind insertion of the aforesaid Explanation to section 14A of the Act was to clarify that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the provisions of this section shall apply and se where exempt income has not accrued or arisen or has not been received during the previous year relevant to an assessment year and the expenditure has been incurred during the said previous year in relation to such exempt income. ble ITAT Mumbai vide its order dated 29.06.2022 in the case of Bajaj Capital Ventures (P) Ltd. (2022) 141 taxmann.com 1 Trib) has held that the amendment by way of insertion of the aforesaid explanation was prospective in nature and that prior to 1.4.2022, no disallowance could be made under section 14A with respect to expenditure incurred by assessee to earn exempt income, when no exempt income was earned during relevant assessment year. The relevant extract of \"7. We find that there is no dispute about the fact that the assessee did not have any tax exempt income during the relevant previous year and that the period before us pertains to the period prior to insertion of explanation to iew of thematter, and in the light of consistent stand by ordinate benches, following Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment in the case of Cheminvest Ltd v. CIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 118/234 Taxman 761/378 ITR 33, we uphold the plea of the assessee that no disallowance under section 14A was and in the circumstances of the case. The plea of the 7.11. The same view that the insertion of the explanation in section 14A is ble Delhi High Court in the case of Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd (2022) 141 taxmann.com 289 \"8. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the amendment of section Printed from counselvise.com 14A, which is \"for removal of doub even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood. 9. Though the judgment of this Court has been challenged and is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court, yet there is no judgment till date. Consequently, in view of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360 and Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association [1992] 3 being covered by the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench in IL & FS Energy Development Co. Ltd. (supra) and Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 118/234 Taxman 761/378 ITR 33 (Delhi). 10. Accordingly, the appeal and application are dismissed. However, it is clarified that the order passed in the present appeal shall abide by the final decision of the Supreme Court in the SLP filed in the case of IL & FS Energy Development Co. Ltd. (supra). 7.12. The appellant has contended that for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, only those investments are to be considered from which exempt income has been received during the year under consideration. The appellant relied on the decision of Cargo Motors (P.) Ltd V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ([2022] 145 taxmann.com 641) wherein it was held that while calculating disallowance made under Rule 8D @ 0.5% of the average investments, only those investments have to be considered which has yielded exempt income during the previous year. 7.13. The issue raised by the appellant and interpretation that evolved is that the investments which do not give rise to exempt income are to be excluded from working of applied only in respect of investment yielding exempted income. During the period under consideration in the present case of the appellant, Rule 8D(2)(ii) postulated that in the calculation of the disallowance annual average of the monthly averages of the opening and closing balances of the value of investment which does not or shall not form part of the total income\" should be taken into consideration. The appellant has relied on a slew of judgments on this issue. 7.14. A similar view has been taken into the recent decision of Special Bench of Delhi ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd(82 taxmann.com 415) where in it has been categorically being held that for the purpose of co investments are to be considered for computing average value of investments which yielded exempt income during the year. It shall be pertinent to note that though the judgment has been rendered from the perspective of Rule 8D(2)(iii) but the rationale of the same can even be extending to the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(ii) since both the provisions use the same terminology. K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 6083/MUM/2025 14A, which is \"for removal of doubts\" cannot be presumed to be retrospective even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it 9. Though the judgment of this Court has been challenged and is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court, yet there is no stay of the said judgment till date. Consequently, in view of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360 and Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association [1992] 3 SCC 1, the present appeal is dismissed being covered by the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench in IL & FS Energy Development Co. Ltd. (supra) and Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 118/234 Taxman 761/378 ITR 33 (Delhi). Accordingly, the appeal and application are dismissed. However, it is clarified that the order passed in the present appeal shall abide by the final decision of the Supreme Court in the SLP filed in the case of IL & FS Energy Development Co. Ltd. (supra).\" 7.12. The appellant has contended that for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, only those investments are to be considered from which exempt income has been received during the year under consideration. The appellant relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cargo Motors (P.) Ltd V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ([2022] 145 taxmann.com 641) wherein it was held that while calculating disallowance made under Rule 8D @ 0.5% of the average investments, only those ments have to be considered which has yielded exempt income during the previous year. 7.13. The issue raised by the appellant and interpretation that evolved is that the investments which do not give rise to exempt income are to be excluded from working of disallowance under rule 8D. Rule 8D is to be applied only in respect of investment yielding exempted income. During the period under consideration in the present case of the appellant, Rule 8D(2)(ii) postulated that in the calculation of the disallowance amount \"1% of the annual average of the monthly averages of the opening and closing balances of the value of investment which does not or shall not form part of the total income\" should be taken into consideration. The appellant has relied on a gments on this issue. 7.14. A similar view has been taken into the recent decision of Special Bench of Delhi ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd(82 taxmann.com 415) where in it has been categorically being held that for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 14A, only those investments are to be considered for computing average value of investments which yielded exempt income during the year. It shall be pertinent to note that though the judgment has been rendered from the rspective of Rule 8D(2)(iii) but the rationale of the same can even be extending to the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(ii) since both the provisions use the same terminology. K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. 8 ITA No. 6083/MUM/2025 ts\" cannot be presumed to be retrospective even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it 9. Though the judgment of this Court has been challenged and is pending stay of the said judgment till date. Consequently, in view of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360 and Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South SCC 1, the present appeal is dismissed being covered by the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench in IL & FS Energy Development Co. Ltd. (supra) and Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 118/234 Taxman 761/378 ITR 33 (Delhi). Accordingly, the appeal and application are dismissed. However, it is clarified that the order passed in the present appeal shall abide by the final decision of the Supreme Court in the SLP filed in the case of IL & FS Energy 7.12. The appellant has contended that for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, only those investments are to be considered from which exempt income has been received during the year under consideration. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cargo Motors (P.) Ltd V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ([2022] 145 taxmann.com 641) wherein it was held that while calculating disallowance made under Rule 8D @ 0.5% of the average investments, only those ments have to be considered which has yielded exempt income during 7.13. The issue raised by the appellant and interpretation that evolved is that the investments which do not give rise to exempt income are to be disallowance under rule 8D. Rule 8D is to be applied only in respect of investment yielding exempted income. During the period under consideration in the present case of the appellant, Rule 8D(2)(ii) amount \"1% of the annual average of the monthly averages of the opening and closing balances of the value of investment which does not or shall not form part of the total income\" should be taken into consideration. The appellant has relied on a 7.14. A similar view has been taken into the recent decision of Special Bench of Delhi ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd(82 taxmann.com 415) where in it has been categorically being held that for the mputing disallowance under section 14A, only those investments are to be considered for computing average value of investments which yielded exempt income during the year. It shall be pertinent to note that though the judgment has been rendered from the rspective of Rule 8D(2)(iii) but the rationale of the same can even be extending to the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(ii) since both the provisions use the Printed from counselvise.com 7.15. Further, reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the Ltd(7472/Mum/2016), where in it has been specifically held that for the purpose of Rule 8D(ii) & Rule 8D(iii) only those investments will be considered from which exempt income is being earned during the year u consideration. 7.16. Next, in the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of Sajjan India Ltd. v. ACIT (89 taxmann.com 21), the Hon'ble Tribunal reliance placing on the decision of the Hon'ble Special Bench in the case of Vireet Investments (supra instruments/securities which yielded exempt income during previous year relevant to assessment year shall be considered for computing disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the rules. 7.17. Further, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT [2015] 62 taxmann.com 71 (Delhi) wherein the facts of the case are similar to that of the appellant, wherein the assessee had substantial investme generated exempt income during the year. Though the AO had considered all the investments while computing disallowance under Rule 8D, the Hon'ble High Court directed to factor out those investments which did not yield exempt income and consider only those investments from which exempt income is received during the year. 7.18. Thus, out of the entire investment made by the assessee, the investment which yielded exempt income has to be identified and monthly average of opening and closing stock of such investment alone has to be considered for working out 1% for disallowance. In other words, the investments which do not give rise to exempt income are to be excluded from working of disallowance under rule 8D. 7.19. The appe Mumbai ITAT, through orders for AY 2010 learned AO to restrict the disallowance solely to those investments that had generated exempt income for the assessee. This of the Special Bench decision in Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. 7.20. The appellant further submitted that, in their own case, the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in its orders for AY 2013 book profit\" under Section 115JB is not to be increased by the disallowance made by the A.O. under Section 14A of the Act. 7.21. Accordingly, in light of the above discussions and relevant legal precedents, it is concluded that the appellant's contention that w calculating the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, only those investments that have generated actual exempt income should be considered is correct in law. Consequently, the AO is directed to consider only such investments for disallowan appellant has appropriately made a suo moto disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 6083/MUM/2025 7.15. Further, reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai case DCIT Vs Anand Rathi Capital Advisors P. Ltd(7472/Mum/2016), where in it has been specifically held that for the purpose of Rule 8D(ii) & Rule 8D(iii) only those investments will be considered from which exempt income is being earned during the year u 7.16. Next, in the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of Sajjan India Ltd. v. ACIT (89 taxmann.com 21), the Hon'ble Tribunal reliance placing on the decision of the Hon'ble Special Bench in the case of Vireet Investments (supra) has categorically held that only those instruments/securities which yielded exempt income during previous year relevant to assessment year shall be considered for computing disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the rules. Further, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT [2015] 62 taxmann.com 71 (Delhi) wherein the facts of the case are similar to that of the appellant, wherein the assessee had substantial investments out of which only few investments generated exempt income during the year. Though the AO had considered all the investments while computing disallowance under Rule 8D, the Hon'ble High Court directed to factor out those investments which did not exempt income and consider only those investments from which exempt income is received during the year. 7.18. Thus, out of the entire investment made by the assessee, the investment which yielded exempt income has to be identified and monthly ening and closing stock of such investment alone has to be considered for working out 1% for disallowance. In other words, the investments which do not give rise to exempt income are to be excluded from working of disallowance under rule 8D. 7.19. The appellant further contended that, in their own case, the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT, through orders for AY 2010-11 and AY 2012 learned AO to restrict the disallowance solely to those investments that had generated exempt income for the assessee. This direction was issued in light of the Special Bench decision in Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. - 165 ITR 27. 7.20. The appellant further submitted that, in their own case, the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in its orders for AY 2013-14 and AY 2015-16 ruled that the profit\" under Section 115JB is not to be increased by the disallowance made by the A.O. under Section 14A of the Act. 7.21. Accordingly, in light of the above discussions and relevant legal precedents, it is concluded that the appellant's contention that w calculating the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, only those investments that have generated actual exempt income should be considered is correct in law. Consequently, the AO is directed to consider only such investments for disallowance purposes. In the present case, the appellant has appropriately made a suo moto disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. 9 ITA No. 6083/MUM/2025 7.15. Further, reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai case DCIT Vs Anand Rathi Capital Advisors P. Ltd(7472/Mum/2016), where in it has been specifically held that for the purpose of Rule 8D(ii) & Rule 8D(iii) only those investments will be considered from which exempt income is being earned during the year under 7.16. Next, in the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of Sajjan India Ltd. v. ACIT (89 taxmann.com 21), the Hon'ble Tribunal reliance placing on the decision of the Hon'ble Special Bench in the case of Vireet ) has categorically held that only those instruments/securities which yielded exempt income during previous year relevant to assessment year shall be considered for computing disallowance Further, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT [2015] 62 taxmann.com 71 (Delhi) wherein the facts of the case are similar to that of the appellant, wherein the nts out of which only few investments generated exempt income during the year. Though the AO had considered all the investments while computing disallowance under Rule 8D, the Hon'ble High Court directed to factor out those investments which did not exempt income and consider only those investments from which 7.18. Thus, out of the entire investment made by the assessee, the investment which yielded exempt income has to be identified and monthly ening and closing stock of such investment alone has to be considered for working out 1% for disallowance. In other words, the investments which do not give rise to exempt income are to be excluded from llant further contended that, in their own case, the Hon'ble 11 and AY 2012-13, directed the learned AO to restrict the disallowance solely to those investments that had direction was issued in light 165 ITR 27. 7.20. The appellant further submitted that, in their own case, the Hon'ble 16 ruled that the profit\" under Section 115JB is not to be increased by the disallowance 7.21. Accordingly, in light of the above discussions and relevant legal precedents, it is concluded that the appellant's contention that while calculating the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, only those investments that have generated actual exempt income should be considered is correct in law. Consequently, the AO is directed to consider ce purposes. In the present case, the appellant has appropriately made a suo moto disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance Printed from counselvise.com made amounting to Rs. 2,71,98,549/ income under normal provision as well as calculating income u/s 115JB of the Act appellant during the year. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the AO amounting Rs. 2,71,98,549/ this ground of appeal of the appel 5.1 We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the binding precedent of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on th same is upheld. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 22/01/2026 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 6083/MUM/2025 made amounting to Rs. 2,71,98,549/- u/s 14A of the Act while calculating income under normal provision as well as calculating income u/s 115JB of the Act appellant during the year. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the AO amounting Rs. 2,71,98,549/-is hereby deleted. In view of the above, this ground of appeal of the appellant is allowed.” We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the binding precedent ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and same is upheld. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ounced in the open Court on 22/01/2026. Sd/ (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. 10 ITA No. 6083/MUM/2025 u/s 14A of the Act while calculating income under normal provision as well as calculating income u/s 115JB of the Act appellant during the year. Accordingly, the disallowance made by is hereby deleted. In view of the above, We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the binding precedent ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, we do not find any e issue in dispute and same is upheld. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. /01/2026. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "