TATA INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1509/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0616 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V JUSTIN
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 115JB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 1509 /MUM/ 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 TATA INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. ELPHISTONE BUILDING, 2 ND FLOOR, 10, VEER NARIMAN ROAD, MUMBAI - 400001 VS. ACIT - 2(3) ROOM NO. 552, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI - 400020 PAN NO. AAACT4120F APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. M.M. GOLVALA , AR REVENUE BY : MR. V. JUSTIN , DR DATE OF HEARING : 14/11/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09/02/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2011 - 12. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6 , [IN SHORT CIT(A)] MUMBAI AND ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, (THE ACT). 2. WE DEAL WITH THE 1 ST , 2 ND , 3 RD AND 4 TH GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE TOGETHER AS THEY ADDRESS A COMMON ISSUE. THE GROUNDS ARE THAT (I) BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER RULE 8D UNDER THE NORMAL COMPUTATION IS REQUIRED TO BE TATA INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. ITA NO. 1509/MUM/2015 2 APPLIED WHILE MAKING AN ADDITION UNDER CLAUSE (F) TO E XPLANATION 1 BELOW SECTION 115JB IN THE MAT COMPUTATION, (II) BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN MISREADING THE PROVISIONS OF LAW RELATING TO COMPUTATION OF MINIMUM ALTERNATE TAX U/S 115JB, (III) THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) BE DIRECTED TO ACCEPT THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME UNDER CLAUSE (F) TO EXPLANATION 1 BELOW SECTION 115JB, AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,91,97,300/ - WHILE COMPUTING MAT, (IV) IN ANY EVENT, THE AO BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D(2)(II) AM OUNTING TO RS.50,45,000/ - BOTH IN THE NORMAL COMPUTATION AND THE COMPUTATION OF MAT. 3. THE APPELLANT ALSO FILED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL ON 11.08.2017 INCORPORATING THREE GROUNDS. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE APPELLANT WITHDRAWS THE 3 RD ADDITIONAL GROUND. THE REMAINING TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE THAT (I) BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN NOT EXCLUDING INVESTMENTS, ON WHICH NO DIVIDEND WAS RECEIVED WHILE COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, (II) BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN NOT EXCLUDING INVESTMENTS, ON WHICH NO DIVIDEND WAS RECEIVED WHILE COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE UNDER CLAUSE (F) TO EXPLANATION 1 BELOW SECTION 115JB, WHILE COMPUTING MAT. 3.1 AS THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ARE BASED ON FACTS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO, WE ADMIT THE SAME FOR ADJUDICATION. TATA INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. ITA NO. 1509/MUM/2015 3 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLANT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 29.09.2011 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.44,61,68,289/ - UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS AND BOOK PROFITS OF RS.177,57,86,178/ - U/D 115JB OF THE ACT. SINCE THE TAX ON BOOK PROFIT WAS HIGHER THAN THE TAX ON NORMAL COMPUTATION, THE AO ASSESSED THE BOOK PROF IT AT RS.180,07,24,877/ - U/S 115JB. WHILE ARRIVING AT THE ABOVE BOOK PROFIT, THE AO MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,49,38,699/ - U/S 14A. ALSO THE SAME DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY HIM WHILE ARRIVING AT THE ASSESSED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.47,11,06,988/ - IN THE NORMAL C OMPUTATION OF INCOME. IT IS PERTINENT TO FIND OUT HOW THE AO ARRIVED AT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,49,38,699/ - U/S 14A. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HE FOUND OUT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD EARNED EXEMPT INCOME OF RS.58,64,44,748/ - [DIVIDEND U/S 10(34)] AND RS.104,79,05,552/ - [LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS U/S 10(38)]. THE APPELLANT HAD DISALLOWED RS.2,91,97,301/ - AS EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE EXEMPT INCOME. IN RESPONSE TO A QUERY RAISED BY THE AO TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY DISALLOWANCES SHOULD NOT BE MADE U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 15.01.2013 THAT IT HAD DISALLOWED REASONABLE EXPENSES AS PER TAX AUDIT REPORT AND THEREFORE FURTHER DISALLOWANCE IS NOT CALLED FOR. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE SAID EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT AND HE MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,41,36,000/ - U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D [RS. 50,45,000/ - UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) AND RS.4,90,91,000/ - UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III)]. AS THE APPELLANT HAD DISALLOWED SUO MOTU TATA INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. ITA NO. 1509/MUM/2015 4 RS.2,91,97,301/ - , THE AO RESTRICTED THE DISALLO WANCE TO RS.2,49,38,699/ - (RS.5,41,36,000/ - MINUS RS.2,91,97,301/ - ). 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE APPELLANT FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE AO AND DISALLOWED THE APPEAL. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FILES A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT IN ACIT V. VIREET INVESTMENT (P.) LTD. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (DELHI - TRIB.) , STATING THAT COMPUTATION UNDER CLAUSE (F) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB(2) IS TO BE MADE WITHOUT RESORTING TO COMPUTATION AS CONTEMPLATED U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D AND ONLY THOSE INVESTMENTS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPUTING AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS WHICH YIELDED EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE YEAR. ALSO IT IS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE APPELLANTS OWN FUNDS OF RS.1,63,968.62 LACS EXCEED THE TOTAL INVESTMENT MADE BY IT OF RS.1,29,088.44 LACS AND THEREFORE, A PRESUMPTION REQUIRES TO BE DRAWN THAT THE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE APPELLANTS OWN F UNDS. RELIANCE IS PLACED BY HIM ON THE DECISION IN CIT V. HDFC BANK LTD . 366 ITR 505 (BOM). , CIT V. HOLCIM INDIA (P.) LTD . ( 2015) 57 TAXMANN.COM 28 (DELHI), CHEMINVEST LTD. V. CIT - IV (61 TAXMANN.COM 118 (DELHI), MRINALINI TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. V. DCIT - 3(2) , MUMBAI (ITA NO. 1211/M/2014) DATED 26 TH JULY 2017, BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. V. DCIT - 2(1)(1), MUMBAI (ITA NO. 1716/M/2017) DATED 27 TH OCTOBER 2017 . 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). TATA INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. ITA NO. 1509/MUM/2015 5 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD . IN VIREET INVESTMENT (P.) LTD . (SUPRA), THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT, DELHI HAS HELD THAT COMPUTATION UNDER CLAUSE (F) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB(2) IS TO BE MADE WITHOUT RESORTING TO C OMPUTATION AS CONTEMPLATED U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D AND ONLY THOSE INVESTMENTS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPUTING AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS WHICH YIELDED EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE YEAR. FACTS BEING IDENTICAL, WE FOLLOW THE ABOVE DECISION AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.2,49,38,699/ - MADE BY HIM U/S 14A WHILE CALCULATING BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB. 8.1 WE NOW TURN TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,49,38,699/ - MADE BY THE AO U/S 14A IN THE NORMAL COMPUTATION OF INCOME. ON A PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT AS AT 31 ST MARCH 2011, WE FIND THAT IT HAD ITS OWN FUNDS OF RS.1,63,968.62 LACS WHICH EXCEED TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS.1,29,088.44 LACS . IN HDFC BANK LTD . (SUPRA) , THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT REFERRING TO THE DECISION IN CIT VS. HDFC BANK LTD. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (BOM) AND CIT V. RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (BOM) HELD AS UNDER : 15. IT IS CLEAR THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE CASE OF HDFC BANK LTD. (SUPRA) THAT THIS COURT TOOK A VIEW THAT THE PRESUMPTION WHICH HAS BEEN LAID DOWN IN RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD . (SUPRA) WITH REGARD TO INVESTMENT IN TAX FREE SECURITIES COMING OUT OF AS SESSEE'S OWN FUNDS IN CASE THE SAME ARE IN EXCESS OF THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE SECURITIES (NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED MAY ALSO HAVE TAKEN SOME FUNDS ON INTEREST) APPLIES, WHEN APPLYING SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THUS, THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN TATA INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. ITA NO. 1509/MUM/2015 6 HDFC BANK LTD. (SUPRA) FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 23RD JULY, 2014 HAS SETTLED THE ISSUE BY HOLDING THAT THE TEST OF PRESUMPTION AS HELD BY THIS COURT IN RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD . (SUPRA) WHILE CONSIDERING SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT W OULD APPLY WHILE CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THIS COURT IN HDFC BANK LTD. (SUPRA) ON THE ABOVE ISSUE HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE IN AS MUCH AS EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE FILED AN APPEAL TO THE SUPRE ME COURT AGAINST THAT ORDER ON THE OTHER ISSUE THEREIN VIZ. BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST, NO APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE ON THE ISSUE OF INVOKING THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD . (SUPRA) IN ITS APPLICATION TO SECTION 14A O F THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE POSITION OF LAW, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,45,000/ - MADE BY HIM UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II). 8.2 FINALLY WE COME THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) IN THE NORMAL COMPUTATION OF INCOME . WE MAY REFER HERE TO THE DECISION CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL. IN HOLCIM INDIA (P.) LTD . (SUPRA) , THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS THE FOLLOWING: WHETHER THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS.8,61,50,315/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND RS.6,60,93,678/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 HOLDING THAT NO DIVIDEND INCOME WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE PROVISIONS U/S 14A. THIS IS NOT SO IN THE INSTANT CASE , AS THE APPELLANT HEREIN HAS RECEIVED EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS MENTIONED AT PARA 4 HEREINBEFORE. IN A SIMILAR VEIN, THE DECISION IN CHEMINVEST LTD . (SUPRA) RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL IS DISTINGUISHABLE AS IT SAYS THAT SECTION14A WILL NOT TATA INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. ITA NO. 1509/MUM/2015 7 APPLY IF NO EXEMPT INCOME IS RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III), WE FIN D THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILED BEFORE THE AO A SUBMISSION DATED 15 JANUARY 2014 STATING THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,91,97,301/ - MADE BY IT, THE WORKING OF EXPENSES UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) COMES TO RS.490.91 LACS (0.5% OF RS.98182.68 LA CS. VIZ. THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT ON WHICH TAX - FREE INCOMES ARE RECEIVABLE). THE APPELLANT HAD FILED THE DETAILS AS ANNEXURE (II) BEFORE THE AO. IN RESPECT OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III), WE ARE GUIDED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT EXPLAINING T HE RATIONALE FOR ENACTMENT OF SECTION 14A IN GODREJ & BOYCE V. DCIT (2010) 194 TAXMAN 203 AS UNDER: SECTION 14A WAS ENACTED BY THE PARLIAMENT IN ORDER TO OVERCOME THE JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES OF CIT V. INDIAN BANK LT D. AIR 1965 SC 1473, CIT V. MAHARASHTRA SUGAR MILLS LTD. [1971] 82 ITR 452 AND RAJASTHAN STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. V. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 450/109 TAXMAN 145 , IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF A COMPOSITE AND INDIVISIBLE BUSINESS, WHICH RESULTS IN EARNING OF TAXABLE AND NON - TAXABLE INCOME, IT IS IMPERMISSIBLE TO APPORTION THE EXPENDITURE BETWEEN WHAT WAS LAID OUT FOR THE EARNING OF TAXABLE INCOME AS OPPOSED TO NON - TAXABLE IN COME. THE EFFECT OF SECTION 14A IS TO WIDEN THE THEORY OF THE APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENDITURE. PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF SECTION 14A, WHERE THE BUSINESS OF AN ASSESSEE WAS NOT A COMPOSITE AND INDIVISIBLE BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSEE EARNED BOTH TAXABLE AND NON - T AXABLE INCOME, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON EARNING NON - TAXABLE INCOME TATA INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. ITA NO. 1509/MUM/2015 8 COULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION AS AGAINST THE TAXABLE INCOME. AS A RESULT OF THE ENACTMENT OF SECTION 14A, NO EXPENDITURE CAN BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH D OES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT. HENCE, EVEN IN THE CASE OF A COMPOSITE AND INDIVISIBLE BUSINESS, WHICH RESULTS IN THE EARNING OF TAXABLE AND NON - TAXABLE INCOME, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO APPORTION THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSE E. ONLY THAT PART OF THE EXPENDITURE, WHICH IS INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH FORMS PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME, CAN BE ALLOWED. THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME HAS TO BE DISALLOWED. FROM THIS, IT WOULD FOLLOW THAT SECTION 14A HAS WITHIN IT IMPLICIT NOTION OF APPORTIONMENT. THE PRINCIPLE OF APPORTIONMENT WHICH PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 14A WOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED TO EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN A COMPOSITE AND INDIVISIBLE BUSINESS WHICH RESULT S IN TAXABLE AND NON - TAXABLE INCOME, MUST, AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE PROVISIONS, APPLY EVEN TO SUCH A SITUATION. THE EXPRESSION 'EXPENDITURE INCURRED' IN SECTION 14A REFERS TO EXPENDITURE ON RENT, TAXES, SALARIES, INTEREST, ETC., IN RESPECT OF WHICH ALLOW ANCES ARE PROVIDED FOR. ALSO IN THE SAME JUDGMENT THEIR LORDSHIPS EXPLAINED RULE 8D AS UNDER: IN THE AFFIDAVIT - IN - REPLY THAT HAD BEEN FILED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, AN EXPLANATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED OF THE RATIONALE UNDERLYING RULE 8D. IT HAD BEEN STATED WITH REFERENCE TO RULE 8D(2)( II ) THAT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO ALLOCATE THE ACTUAL QUANTUM OF BORROWED FUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN USED FOR MAKING TAX - FREE INVESTMENTS. IT IS ONLY THE INTE REST ON BORROWED FUNDS THAT WOULD BE APPORTIONED AND THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST THAT WILL BE TAKEN EXCLUDING ANY EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST WHICH IS DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR INCOME OR RECEIPT (FOR EXAMPLE - ANY ASPECT O F THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS SUCH AS PLANT/MACHINERY, ETC.). AS REGARDS RULE TATA INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. ITA NO. 1509/MUM/2015 9 8D(2)( III ), IT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED THAT SOME MECHANISM OR FORMULA HAD TO BE ADOPTED FOR ATTRIBUTING PART OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE/MANAGERIAL EXPENSES TO TAX - EXEMPT INVESTMENT INCOME. THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO TAX - FREE INVESTMENT INCOME HAVE A FIXED COMPONENT AND A VARIABLE COMPONENT. A VIEW WAS TAKEN THAT THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD ALSO BE LINKED TO THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT RATHER THAN THE AMOUNT OF EXEMPT INCOME. UNDER PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SCHEMES (PMS), THE FEE CHARGED RANGES BETWEEN 2 AND 2.5 PER CENT OF THE PORTFOLIO VALUE WHICH WOULD BE INCLUSIVE OF A PROFIT ELEMENT FOR THE PORTFOLIO MANAGER. WHILE THE FIXED ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES WERE EXCLUDED ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE CASE OF A LARGE CORPORATE TAXPAYER THEY WOULD BE SPREAD OVER A LARGE NUMBER OF VOLUMINOUS ACTIVITIES, THE VARIABLE EXPENSES WERE COMPUTED AT ONE - HALF PER CENT OF THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT. THE JUSTIFICATION THAT HAS BEEN OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF THE RA TIONALE FOR RULE 8D CANNOT BE REGARDED AS BEING CAPRICIOUS, PERVERSE OR ARBITRARY. 8.2.1 IN GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. V. DCIT [2017] 81 TAXMANN.COM111 (SC), IT IS HELD THAT T HE LITERAL MEANING OF SECTION 14A, FAR FROM GIVING RISE TO ANY AB SURDITY, APPEARS TO BE WHOLLY CONSISTENT WITH THE SCHEME OF THE ACT AND THE OBJECT/PURPOSE OF LEVY OF TAX ON INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE POSITION OF LAW, WE CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.490.91 LACS MADE BY THE AO UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) IN NORMAL COMPUTA TION OF INCOME . 9. TO SUM UP, (I ) THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO OF RS.2,49,38,699/ - WHILE ARRIVING AT BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB IS DELETED, (II) THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IN NORMAL COMPUTATION OF RS.50.45 LACS UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) IS DELETED AND (III) THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE TATA INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. ITA NO. 1509/MUM/2015 10 AO IN NORMAL COMPUTATION OF RS.490.91 LACS UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) IS CONFIRMED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/02/2018. SD/ - SD/ - ( D.T. GARASIA ) (N.K. PR ADHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 09/02/2018 RAHUL SHARMA, SR. P.S. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE . BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI