IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 1018/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year 2011-12) Tata Projects Limited ACIT Range 2(3) Hiranandani Knowledge Park Vs. Aayakar Bhavan 11 t h Floor, Technology Street M.K. Road Powai, Mumbai-400 076. Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.AAACT4119L Assessee by Shri Rajan Vora Department by Shri A.K. Kardam Date of Hearing 17.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement 17.10.2016 ORDER Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- appeal filed by assessee is directed against order dated 26.12.2014 passed by learned CIT(A)-6, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2011-12. 2. solitary issue urged in this appeal relates to disallowance made u/s. 14A of Act. 3. Learned AR submitted that Assessing Officer has made disallowance of ` 1.09 crores under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of I.T. Rules as against disallowance of ` 16.51 lakhs made by assessee. Learned AR submitted that Assessing Officer has included manufacturing expenses also for purpose of computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of I.T. Rules. He further submitted that identical issue was considered by Coordinate Bench in assessee s own case relating to A.Y. 2008-09 to 2010-11 (ITA No. 544/Mum/2012 and others dated 21.2.2014) and Tribunal has restored matter to file of Assessing Officer with certain directions. Learned AR further submitted that investment made by assessee includes strategic 2 T at Pr oj ec ts L i mi te d investments only and certain investments did not yield dividend income. He further submitted that views are being expressed to effect that dividend income cannot be considered as exempted income, since same has suffered taxation in hands of company. Accordingly, learned AR submitted that he does not have any objection in setting aside this matter to file of AO and further prayed that suitable direction may be issued to Assessing Officer to consider various contentions of assessee. 4. On contrary, learned Departmental Representative submitted that income earned by assessee by way of dividend is exempt in his hands and fact that company had paid dividend distribution tax cannot have any bearing in hands of assessee. He submitted that provisions of section 14A of Act has been well explained by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (328 ITR 81). 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused record. We noticed that identical issue has been restored to file of Assessing Officer in assessee s own case by Coordinate Bench in A.Y. 2008-09 to 2010-11 (referred above) with following directions: 'It is to be noted that Rule 8D is applicable for year under consideration therefore, disallowance of administrative expenses has to be computed as per formula provided in Rule 8D. However, disallowance worked out under Rule 8D cannot exceed total expenditure claimed by assessee which can be apportioned to exempt income. Thus we set aside this issue to record of AO for limited purpose of computing total expenditure incurred by assessee for composite/indivisible activities in which taxable and non-taxable income is received and if disallowance work out under Rule 8D on account of administrative expenses exceeds total claim of expenditure incurred for composite activities resulting taxable or non-taxable income then disallowance should be restricted to said actual total claim of expenditure." 6. Consistent with view taken by coordinate bench, we set aside order passed by learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore same to file of Assessing Officer for considering issue afresh by duly considering 3 T at Pr oj ec ts L i mi te d all types of contentions that may be raised and all materials that may be produced by assessee. 7. In result, appeal filed by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order has been pronounced in Court on 17.10.2016 Sd/- Sd/- (RAMLAL NEGI) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 17/10/2016 Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai Tata Projects Limited v. ACIT, Range-2(3), Mumbai