DCIT CEN CIR 5(1), MUMBAI V. SHREE GLOBAL TRADEFIN LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 963/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2582 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHOUDHURY ARUN KUMAR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: DILIP LAKHANI
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

AAYAK AAYAK AAYAK AAYAKR APILAIYA AIQ R APILAIYA AIQ R APILAIYA AIQ R APILAIYA AIQAKRNA AKRNA AKRNA AKRNA N N N NYAAYAPIZ YAAYAPIZ YAAYAPIZ YAAYAPIZ MAMUBA[ MAMUBA[ MAMUBA[ MAMUBA[- -- - MAO MAOMAO MAO. .. . IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUM BAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI M BALGANESH, A M AAYAKR APILA SA AAYAKR APILA SA AAYAKR APILA SA AAYAKR APILA SAM MM M . / ITA NO.963/MUM/2017 ( INAQA-ARNA BAYA- / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14) DCIT, CENT. CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI., VS SHREE GLOBAL TRADE FIN LTD., 35, ASHOK CHAMBERS, BRROACH STR4EET, DEVJI RATNASEY MARG, MASJID BUNDER, MUMBAI ( APILAAQA APILAAQA APILAAQA APILAAQAI II I - -- - / APPELLANT) .. ( P` P`P` P`%YAQAA %YAQAA %YAQAA %YAQAAI II I- -- - / RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAACV 2975 J REVENUE BY : SHRI CHOUDHURY ARUN KUMAR SINGH DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DILIP LAKHANI, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING: 28.2.2019: DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 7.3.19 AADOSA AADOSA AADOSA AADOSA / O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF THE OR DER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-53, MUMBAI [IN SHORT CIT(A)], IN APPEAL NO.53/DCCC-5A(10/IT-140/15-16 DATED303.9..20 16. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1) MUMBAI (IN SHORT DCIT) FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 VIDE ORDER DATED 2 ITA NO. 6422/MUM/2016 CO. 111/M/2018 29.1.2016 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT). 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXCLUDE THE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS THAT DID NOT YIELD EXEMPT INCO ME DURING THE YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D(2)(II) AND 8D(2)(III). FOR THIS, THE REVENUE HA S RAISED FOLLOWING THREE GROUNDS: 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN EXCLUDING THE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS THAT DI D NOT YIELD EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATI ON OF DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D(2)(II) AND 8D(2)(III) EVEN AFTER CONSID ERING THE FACT THAT THE SAID INVESTMENT IS AN INVESTMENT TO EARN TAX FREE I NCOME.' 2. 'ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN TAKING ONLY CLOSING INVESTMENT OF OTHER CO MPANIES AT RS. 11,44,00,850/- REPRESENTING