| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण (cid:12)ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT &

SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2169/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. DCIT, 1(1)(1), Mumbai The Times of India Bldg. Vs Dr. D.N. Road Fort Maharashtra - 400001 [PAN: AAACB4373Q]

अपीलाथ(cid:22)/ (Appellant) (cid:23)(cid:24) यथ(cid:22)/ (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Kshitij Kasi, A/Rs Revenue by : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 22/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld.

dated 27/03/2024 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT(A)’]

pertaining to AY 2017-18.

2. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:-

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order on non-existing entity/merger entity's PAN, even though the event of merger was already being intimated during the appeal proceedings. 1.2.

The Appellant prays that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) be quashed.

2. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2.2 Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Rule 8D cannot be invoked without recording objective satisfaction qua Appellant's claim that no expense is relatable to earning exempt income except suo-moto disallowance of 14A offered by Appellant having regard to its books of account. 2.3 Without prejudice to above, Ld CIT(A) erred in rejecting suo-moto disallowance offered by Appellant since such disallowance cannot exceed actual expenses debited to Profit and Loss A/c and claimed in computation of income(COI). 2.4 Without prejudice to above, disallowance be restricted in the manner determined by CIT(A) for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 and upheld by Hon Tribunal for said years. 2.5 The Appellant prays that disallowance of Rs6,26,01,721 u/s 14A rwr 8D be deleted and /or appropriately reduced.

3. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to above, Ld AO failed to reduce Securities Transaction Tax expenses of Rs13,01,397 while computing disallowance u/s 14A rwr 8D which has been added back suo- moto by Appellant in COI.

4. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to above, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the insertion of Explanation to first proviso of S. 14A of the Act vide Finance Act 2022, is prospective in nature and therefore ought to have directed the Id. AO to consider only those investments which have actually yielded tax free income during the year.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding addition of Rs. 15,18,85,891/- being the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D, while computing. the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 5.2 The Appellant prays that the addition made in book profit u/s 115JB of the act be deleted.

6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in not allowing the deduction of Rs. 20,02,35,339/- being difference between book profits and capital gains with indexation benefit arising on transfer of STT paid securities while computing the book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act. 6.2 The Appellant prays that the deduction of Rs. 20,02,35,339/- being difference between the book gains and indexed capital gain arising on transfer of STT paid securities be allowed while computing the book profit u/s 115JB.”

3. Ground No. 1 was not pressed and the same is dismissed as not pressed.

4. Ground Nos. 2 to 4 relate to the disallowance made u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of buying and selling of media properties