COMPUTER AGE MANAGAMENT SERVICES,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, LTU-2, CHENNAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Rule 8D should be restricted to the extent of exempt income. Since the assessee's suo motu disallowance exceeded the exempt income, the additional disallowance made by the AO was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee earned exempt income and suo motu disallowed expenses related to it. The Assessing Officer (AO) made a higher disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income under Section 14A read with Rule 8D should be restricted to the amount of exempt income.
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.
- Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT1,596 citing402 ITR 640 · 2018 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
O R D E R
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi in Appeal No.CIT(A), Chennai -17/10564/2019-20 dated 05.09.2022. The assessment was framed by the ACIT, LTU-2, Chennai u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2017-18 vide order dated 19.12.2019.
The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income by invoking the provisions of section 14A r.w.s.8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 i.e., Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules at Rs.1,50,66,123/- as against suo motto disallowance made by assessee at Rs.34,08,342/-. For this, assessee has raised various grounds, which need not be reproduced because those are argumentative.
We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstance of the case. Admitted facts are that the assessee has earned exempt income at Rs.11.47 lakhs and claimed the same as exempt in the computation of total income. The AO noted that the assessee suo motto calculated disallowance u/s.14A r.w.rule 8D of the Rules, a sum of Rs.34,08,342/-. The AO not satisfied with the correctness of the assessee’s claim of disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income at RS.34,08,342/-, he made disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) at Rs.1,84,74,465/-, after allowing rebate of suo- motto disallowance of Rs.34,08,342/- he made balance disallowance of Rs.1,50,66,123/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO and confirmed the addition of Rs.1,50,66,123/- apart from suo-motto disallowance made by assessee at Rs.34,08,342/-. Aggrieved, now assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal.
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 →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026