Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) -2 v. M/S. Acb India Ltd

Signed By:RAM DATTSigning Date:09.10.2024 15:41Certify that the digital and physical file havebeen compared and the digital data is as perthe physical file and no page is missing. $~1 to 6 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIthe physical file and no page is missing.+ITA 1254/2018, ITA 1255/2018, ITA 1256/2018, ITA 1257/2018, ITA1258/2018 and ITA 1259/2018 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) -2 Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counselfor Revenue Versus M/S. ACB INDIA LTD. Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Jain and Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal,Advocates.Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KIIANNAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI % ORDER- 27.11.2018 CM No. 46980/2018 in ITAT254/2018 CM No. 46981/2018 in ITA 1255/2018CM No. 46982/2018 in ITA 1256/2018CM No. 46983/2018 in ITA 1257/2018 CM No. 46984/2018 in ITA 1258/2018CM No. 46985/2018 ihlTA 1259/2018 Applications for condonation of delay are allowed as they are notopposed. CM No. 49263/2018 in ITA 1255/2018CM No. 49277/2018 in ITA 1256/2018CM No. 49282/2018 in ITA 1257/2018CM No. 49271/2018 in ITA 1258/2018CM No. 49292/2018 inlTA 1259/2018 These applications for placing the correct orders passed by the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are also allowed. ITA Nos. 1255/2018 and 1257/2018 These appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 ('Act' for short) in the case of ACB India Private Limited relate tothe Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessing Officer, invoking clause (ii) of Sub-Rule 2 to Rule 8D ofthe Income Tax Rules, 1962, had made disallowance of Rs. 39,05,855/- underSection 14A of the Act, being one-half per cent of of the average of the totalinvestment of Rs.78,11,71,066/- made by the respondent-assessee as onApril, 2010 and on 3 March, 2011. 3. Total exempt income earned by the respondent-assessee during the yearin form of dividend income was Rs. 47,950/-. The exempt income of Rs.47,950/- was less than 0.666% of the appellants total income ofRs.795,12,40,999/-. Further, the amount of disallowance was more than 8000%of the exempt income earned. 4. ' The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had computed thedisallowance by taking average of the dividend yielding investment at thebeginning and at the end of the Assessment Year 2011-12. On this computation,expenditure of Rs. 1,644/- was disallowed under Section 14A of the Act. 5. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has upheld the first appellate orderrelying on the Delhi High Court decision in the case of the respondent-assesseefor the Assessment year 2008-09 reported as ACB India Limited v. AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Delhi). 6. In the aforesaid factual background, we are not inclined to issue notice inthe appeals for the assessment year 2011-12. They are dismissed without anyorder as to costs. ITA Nos.1254/2018,1256/2018.1258/2018 and 1259/2018: 7. Facts in respect of the Assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14 are different and reasoning given by the Income Tax Appellate Tril^nal wouldrequire consideration in view of the ratio in Maxopp Investment Limitedversus Commissioner of Income Tax (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). Accordingly,we direct issue of notice in ITA Nos. 1254/2018, 1256/2018, 1258/2018 and1259/2018 which relate to the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice,accepts notice. 9. Re-list on 6^^^ March, 2019. SANJIVKHANNA, J. MR ^ NOVEMBER 27, 2018^ ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J