KOTAK MAHINDRA INVESTMENTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, OSD, RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned, and since the suo-moto disallowance was already higher, no further disallowance was warranted. The Tribunal also directed the AO to re-compute the interest under Sections 234B and 234C.
What were the facts?
The assessee bank earned dividend income and made a suo-moto disallowance under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer (AO) made a higher disallowance under Rule 8D. The assessee also disputed the calculation of interest under Sections 234B and 234C.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance under Section 14A can exceed exempt income, and whether the AO correctly calculated interest under Sections 234B and 234C.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Daga Global Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT5 citing82 Taxmann.com 254 · 2017 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI
आदेश/ ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 31.03.2023, for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee in appeal has raised four grounds assailing the impugned order, viz: Ground No.1: Violation of Principle of Natural Justice.
2 आअसं. 1712/मुं/2023(िन.व. 2011-12) (AY 2011-12) Ground No.2: Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) r.w.r. 8D. Ground No.3: Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. Ground No.4: Levy of interest under section 234C of the Act.
Sh. Madhur Agrawal appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that he is not pressing Ground No.1 of appeal. 2.1 In respect of Ground No.2 assailing disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D, the ld. counsel submits that during the period relevant to AY under appeal, the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 22,24,714/-. The assessee has made suo-moto disallowance under section 14A of Rs. 23,31,308/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked Rule 8D and made disallowance of Rs. 98,40,228/-. The ld. Counsel submits that it is a settled legal position now that disallowance under section 14A of the Act cannot exceed exempt income earned during the relevant period. The assessee has itself made suo-moto disallowance of more than the exempt income. He further stated that de-hors the fact that no further disallowance is required to be made, there is no interest expenditure involved as assessee’s own interest free funds are much more than the investments made. Where the assessee is having mixed bag of funds comprising of own interest free funds nad interest bearing funds, it shall be presumed that own interest free funds are utilized for the purpose of investments. 2.2 The Ld. Counsel submits that in ground No.3 & 4, assessee has assailed levy of interest under section 234B & 234C of the Act. The short prayer of the assessee is, the AO while computing interest has made wrong calculations, a direction may be given to the AO for re-computation of interest under the aforesaid sections.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026