ROSA POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT, 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1053/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9576 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R M MADHAVI
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 14A; 115JB; 13; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFA UR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT A NO. 1053 /MUM./2019 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 13 14 ) ROSA POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD. 3 RD FLOOR, SOUTH WING, RELIACE CENTRE NEAR PRABHAT COLONY, SANTACRUZ (E) MUMBAI 400 055 PAN AABCR8917M . APPELLANT V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 14(3)(1), MUMBAI . RESPONDENT ITA NO. 1392/MUM./2019 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 13 14 ) ITA NO. 1394/MUM./2019 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 15 16 ) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 14(3)(1), MUMBAI . APPELLANT V/S ROSA POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD. 3 RD FLOOR, SOUTH WING, RELIACE CENTRE NEAR PRABHAT COLONY, SANTACRUZ (E) MUMBAI 400 055 PAN AABCR8917M . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI JITENDRA SANGHVI REVENUE BY : SHRI R.M. MADHAVI DATE OF HEARING 17 . 0 3 .202 1 DATE OF ORDER 10.06.2021 2 ROSA POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD. O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. THE SE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE BEING ITA NO.1053/MUM./2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 14, REVENUE S APPEAL BEING ITA NO.1392/ MUM./2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 14 AND REVENUES APPEAL BEING ITA NO.1394/MUM./2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 16, HAVE BEE N CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED SEPARATE ORDERS ALL DATED 29 TH NOVEMBE R 2018, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 22, MUMBAI. ITA NO.1053/MUM./2019 ASSESSEES APPEAL A.Y. 2013 14 2. GROUND NO.1, RELATES TO THE DISPUTE AROSE OUT OF LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 1,90,55,736, MADE UNDER SECTION 14A R/W RULE 8D(2)(III). 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, FROM THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, IT CAME T O BE NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ` 1,90,55,736, WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME AGAINST THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISALLOWED SUO MOTU ANY EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE, THEREFORE, SOUGHT EXPLANATION F ROM THE ASSESSEE TO AS TO WHY THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R/W RULE 8D SHOULD NOT BE MADE, THE ASSESSEE 3 ROSA POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD. SUBMITTED THAT TO DEVELOP THE POWER PLANT THE COMPANY HAS BORROWED FUNDS OF ` 3006.12 CRORE AND THE ENTIRE BORROWED FUND HAS BEEN USED FOR THE PUR POSE OF DEVELOPMENT OF POWER PLANT AND NO AMOUNT OF BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN DIVERTED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES / MUTUAL FUNDS. THE INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF SHAREHOLDERS FUNDS OF ` 2707.85 CRORE AND, THUS, NO INTEREST IS RELA TABLE TO THE EXEMPT INCOME AND NO AMOUNT SHOULD BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 14A R/W RULE 8D. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE BUT HELD IT TO BE NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A HAS TO BE MADE WITHOUT ANY DISCRETION PURSUANT TO THE FORMULA DEVISED AS PER RULE 8D. IN SUPPORT OF THIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED UPON CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS VIZ. DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. ; GODREJ BOYCE LTD., BOMBAY HIGH COURT DECISION; AND M/S. CITICORP FINANCE (INDIA) LTD., 12 SOT 248. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF ` 16,60,78,160 AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) RAISING THE DISPUTE. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF H E ARING BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THIS ISSUE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE 4 ROSA POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD. LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED THE GROUND AS NOT PRESSED AND, HENCE, THE ASS ESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. BEFORE US THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION S OF THE TRIBUNAL IN T.D. TOLL ROAD PVT. LTD. V/S DCIT, ITA NO.1789/MUM./2019, ORDER DATED 28 TH FEBRUARY 2020, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 16, T.D. TOLL ROAD PVT. LTD. V/S DCIT, ITA NO.5981/MUM./2017, ORDER DATED 31 ST JANUARY 2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 14, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID CASE LAW. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, ALSO RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) RELIANCE POWER LTD. V/S DC IT, IT NO.5694 & 5975/MUM./ 2012 AND ITA NO.5545 AND 5743/MUM./2013, RELIANCE CAPITAL LTD. V/S DCIT, AND VICE VERSA, ITA NO.5693/ MUM./2012, ITA NO.5537/MUM./2013 AND ITA NO.5764/MUM./ 2013, ORDER DATED 31.08.2017; II) RELIANCE CAPITAL LTD. V/S ACIT, ITA NO.4 326 AND 4794/ MUM./2012, ORDER DATED 13.09.2017; III) RELIANCE CAPITAL LTD. V/S ACIT, ITA NO. 4008 /MUM./201 6 , ORDER DATED 1 7 . 11 .2017; IV) DCIT V/S RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., ITA NO.4345 & 3407/MUM./2015, ORDER DATED 20.12.2017; AND V) ACIT V/S VIREET INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., [2017] 82 TAXMANN.COM 415 (MUM.) (TRIB.). 5 ROSA POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE DECIDED BY THE CO ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN T.D. TOLL ROAD PVT. LTD. V/S DCIT, ITA NO.1789/MUM./2019, ORDER DATED 28 TH FEBRUARY 2020, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 16 AND 2013 14 CITED SUPRA WHEREIN THE TRIB UNAL HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IS EXTRACTED BELOW: 4. A F TER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE OBSERVE THAT UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSEE 'S OWN FUNDS ARE MORE THAN THE AVERAGE INVESTMENTS IN THE SHARES SECURITIES/MUTUAL FUNDS WHICH YIELDED EXEMPT INCOME. WE ARE T H E REFORE OF THE VIEW THAT NO D ISALL OWANCE IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE UNDER RULE 8 D 2( II ). T HE ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN ITA NO.5981/M/2017 A.Y. 2013 14 VIDE ORDER DATED 31.01.2019 AND ITA NO.1646/M/2018 A.Y. 2014 15 ORDER DATED 31.01.2019. THE CO ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. (2001_178 TAXMAN 135 (BOM.) AND CIT V/S HDFC BANK LTD., (2014) 366 ITR 505 (BOM.). A CCORDINGLY, WE ARE SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECTING THE A.O. TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D2(II). SO FAR AS THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D2(III) IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS CALCULATED THE AVERAGE INVES TMENTS AT ` 2,80,54,524/ AS PER ANNEXURE A ATTACHED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS WRONG AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS IT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE MECHANISM AS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 8D2(III). SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OPENING AND CLOSING INVESTMENTS AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF THE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR, THEREFORE THE FORMULA PROVIDED IN THE SAID RULE FAILS AND ACCORDINGLY NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE UNDER RULE 8D2(III). THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPORTED BY THE 6 ROSA POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD. DECISION OF CO ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN ITA NO.5981/M/2017 A.Y. 2013 - 14 VIDE ORDER DATED 31.01.2019 WHEREAS IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR IN ITA NO.1646/M/2018 AX 2014 15 ORDER DATED 21.06.2019 THE ISSUE WAS RESTORED TO THE AO TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH. AFTER CONSIDERING THE R IVAL CONTENTIONS AND ARGUMENTS AND THE DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES , WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.5981/M/2017 (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE MECHANISM OF CALCULATION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D2(III) FAILS WHERE THERE IS NO OPENING AND CLOSING STATEMENTS DURING THE YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D2(III) ALSO. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 8. SINCE THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS COVERED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND ALLOW THE GROUND NO.1, RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.1392/MUM./2019 REVENUES APPEAL ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 14 ITA NO.1394/MUM./2019 REVENUES APPEAL ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 16 10. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE, WHICH ARE COMMON IN BOTH THE CAPTIONED APPEALS: 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN RELYING UPON A PRESUMPTION OF OWN FUNDS TO DETERMINE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WHEN IN FACT THE AMENDED PROVISIONS APPLICABLE OR T HE YEAR PROVIDE A METHOD FOR ITS DETERMINATION'. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN OVERLOOKING THE FACTS THAT ONCE EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME WAS NOT 7 ROSA POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD. IN DISPUTE, IT IS MANDATORY TO FOLLOW RULE 8D FOR DETERMI - NATION OF THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE'. 3. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.C I T(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE REASONS ENUMERATED IN CIRCULAR NO.5 OF 2014 ISSUED BY CBDT THAT THE EXPENSES WHICH ARE RELATABLE TO EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED DURING THE FINANCIAL - YEAR OR NOT AND IGNORING THE METHOD OF D ETERMI - NATION AS PER RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962'. 4. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CI T(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF EX PENDITURE RELATABLE TO THE EXEMPT INCOME AND COMPUTED UNDER SEC. 14A R.W.R 8D IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADDED TO THE BOOK PROFIT, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PLAIN AND LITERAL MEANING OF LANGUAGE EMPLOYED IN CLAUSE (F) OF EXPLANATION - 1 TO SECTION 115JB OF THE I. T . ACT'. 11. INSOFAR AS GROUNDS NO.1, 2 AND 3, IN THESE APPEALS ARE CONCERNED, B EFORE US, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, BOTH THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES HAVE CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS IDENTICAL T O THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL BEING ITA NO.1053/MUM./2019, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 14. ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT THIS ISSUE MAY BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS GIVEN B Y THE TRIBUNAL IN T.D. TOLL ROAD PVT. LTD. V/S DCIT, ITA NO.1789/MUM./2017, FOR A.Y. 2015 16, ORDER DATED 28 TH FEBRUARY 2020. 2. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT T HE RELATED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ISS UE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN TH ESE APPEAL S IS MATERIALLY IDENTICAL TO THE 8 ROSA POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD. ISSUE DECIDED BY US VIDE GROUND NO.1, RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 1053 /MUM./2019, VIDE PARA 7 AND 8 ABOVE, WHEREIN WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY ALLOWING THE IDENTICAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN THEREIN, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN UPHOLDING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E ., FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 14 AND 2015 16 AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER AS SUCH. THUS, THE GROUNDS NO.1, 2 AND 3, RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE DISMISSED. 12. GROUND NO.4, RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 1 4A OF THE ACT R/W RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE I.T. RULES WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. 13. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED THE DISALLOWANCE OF AN AMOUNT OF ` 1,90,55,736, SINCE THE EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUO MOTU DISALLOWED ANY EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 14. THE LEARNED CIT(A) GRANTED REL IEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: 5.3 DECISION : I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND ALSO OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT 9 ROSA POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD. ORDER. ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT R.W.R 8D OF THE RULES IS TO BE ADDED BACK FOR COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S 115 JB OF THE ACT, I FIND THAT THERE ARE CONFLICTING DECISIONS OF VARIOUS TRIBUNALS INCLUDING THE HON B L E JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF. I FIND THAT THE HON B L E PRESIDENT, INCOME - TAX APPELL ATE TRIBUNAL, HAD CONSTITUTED A SPECIAL BENCH OF THE HON BL E IT AT, DELHI IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. V I REET INVESTMENTS P. LTD. (ITA NO.502/DEL/2012) TO ADJUDICATE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED TO EARN EXEMPT I NCOME COMPUTED U/S 14A COULD NOT BE ADDED WHILE CO MPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. THE HON BLE SPECIAL BENCH IN ITS RECENT ORDER DATED 16 . 06 . 2017 HAD DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AT LENGTH AND HELD AS UNDER: 6 . 22 IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ANSWER THE QUESTION REFERRED TO US IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE COMPUTATION UNDER CLAUSE (F) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB(2) IS TO BE MADE WITHOUT RESORTING TO THE COMPUTATION AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BENGAL FINANCE & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. (I.T.A. NO. 337 OF 2013) (ORDER DATED 10.02.2015) (BORN.), THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT AN AMOUNT DISALLOWED U/S 14A OF THE ACT CANNOT BE ADDED TO ARRIVE A T BOOK PROFIT FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN CASE IN A.Y. 2012 - 13, MY PREDECESSOR VIDE ORDER DATED 23.03.2016 HAS ALLOWED THE GROUND OF APPEAL AND HELD THAT: THESE GROUNDS PERTAIN TO ADDING BACK RS. 2,85 , 91 , 450/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION AT GROUND NUMBER 3 - 5 ABOVE, AS WELL AS DECISION OF HO N 'BLE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN RE LIANCE CAPITAL LTD VS DC IT, ITA NO.3303/MU M./ 2003, 3304/MU M. /2003, 5535/MUM . /2003 AND 5413/MUM/2004, THE ADDITION IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED.' RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, HON B L E SP ECIAL B ENCH AND THE APPELLANT'S OWN CASE IN A.Y. 2012 - 13, THE ADDITION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT R.W . R 8 D OF TH E RULES TO THE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115 JB OF THE ACT IS DELET ED. THE APPELLANTS GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE ARE ALLOWED. 10 ROSA POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD. 15. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS INDEED JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO IN SUPPORT OF HIS CL AIM SUBMITTED THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT R / W RULE 8D OF THE R ULES TO THE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT IS ALLOWABLE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS, HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: I) RELIANCE POWER LTD. V/S DCIT, ITA NO.5694/MUM./2012, ITA NO.5975/MUM./2012, ITA NO. 5545/MUM./2013 AND IT A NO.5743/MUM./2013 AND VICE VERSA ITA NO.5693/MUM./2012, ITA NO.5982/MUM./2012, ITA NO.5537/MUM./2013, AND ITA NO.5764/MUM./2013, ORDER DATED 31.08.2017; II) DCIT V/S RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., ITA NO.434 5 & 3407/MUM./2015, ORDER DATED 20.12.2017; III) ACIT V/S VIREET INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., [2017] 82 TAXMANN.COM 415 (DEL.)(SB); AND IV) CIT V/S BENGAL FINANCE & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., ITA NO.337 OF 2013, ORDER DATED 10.02.2015 (BOM.). 16. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVING PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE FOR OUR ADJUDICATION IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 13 , WHEREIN THE ADDITION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT R.W.R 8D OF THE RULES TO THE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT IS DELETED . SINCE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS MATERIALLY ID ENTICAL 11 ROSA POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD. AND SQUARELY COVERED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 13, WE SEE NO LEGAL INFIRMITY IN THE ALLEGED IMPUGNED DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WARRANTING INTERFERENCE AT THE INSTANCE OF T HE REVENUE . THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 18. TO SUM UP, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND REVENUES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.06.2021 SD/ - MAHAVIR SINGH VICE PRESIDENT SD/ - S. RIFAUR RAHMAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 10.06.2021 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI