LINEAR DEALERS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), KOL, KOLKATA
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 the AO failed to record satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim before applying Rule 8D. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified.
What were the facts?
The assessee made a suo moto disallowance of Rs. 8,355/- under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially observed no disallowance was made, then applied Rule 8D to disallow Rs. 58,007/-. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.
What were the issues?
Whether the Assessing Officer properly recorded satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D for disallowance under Section 14A, when the assessee had made a suo moto disallowance.
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.
- Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT683 citing394 ITR 449 · 2017 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE
O R D E R
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”) dated 06/01/2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act’), for Assessment Year 2014-15.
The sole issue for our consideration is regarding disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs. 58,007/-.
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the assessment order submitted that the assessee had made suo moto disallowance of Rs.8,335/- and has filed the computation of the said disallowance before the Assessing Officer. However, the ld. Assessing Officer without making any proper investigation firstly observed that no expenses were disallowed by the assessee u/s 14A of the Act by the assessee company so far as direct and indirect expenses are concerned and thereafter at the end, while completing the assessment has given Assessment Year: 2014-15 Linear Dealers Pvt. Ltd. the deduction of amount suo moto offered by the assessee. It thus shows that the ld. Assessing Officer has not examined the details filed by the assessee and without proper satisfaction, has resorted to Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Reliance was placed on plethora of judgments including the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT & Anr. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) and also decision of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Ashish Jhunjhunwala in Assessment Year 2009- 10.
On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue before us relates to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and the provisions of Section 14A of the Act, read as follows:- “14A. 62[(1)] 63[Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, for the purposes of] computing the total income under this Chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred64 by the assessee in relation to64 income which does not form part of the total income64 under this Act.] 62[(2) The Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under this Act in accordance with such method as may be prescribed65, if the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. (3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act :] Assessment Year: 2014-15 Linear Dealers Pvt. Ltd.
66[Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower the Assessing Officer either to reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.] 67[Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the provisions of this section shall apply and shall be deemed to have always applied in a case where the income, not forming part of the total income under this Act, has not accrued or arisen or has not been received during the previous year relevant to an assessment year and the expenditure has been incurred during the said previous year in relation to such income not forming part of the total income.]
From perusal of the above section, we notice that in sub-section (2) of Section 14A of the Act, it is stated that only if the Assessing Officer having regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee, in respect of such expenditure, in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act, then under such circumstances, the ld. Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in accordance with the prescribed method. So, the first hurdle to be crossed by the Assessing Officer is of recording a satisfaction if not satisfied with the claim made by the assessee. In the instant case, we notice that the assessee has computed the disallowance under section 14A of the Act suo moto at Rs.8,355/-. Calculation of the same is available at page 32, wherein, the 12 heads of expenditure have been mentioned and against those heads of expenses, where there is any element of disallowance to be made under section 14A of the Act, the assessee has made and offered it to tax calculations. These detail were Assessment Year: 2014-15 Linear Dealers Pvt. Ltd. filed before the ld. Assessing Officer. Now the Assessing Officer in order to determine the disallowance under section 14A of the Act as per Rule 8D, ought to have first recorded the satisfaction to the fact whether the amount of disallowance computed by the assessee is incorrect and the reasons for holding it to be incorrect and thereafter he can proceed with the determination of disallowance under section 14A of the Act. However, at page 2 of the assessment order the ld. Assessing Officer observed that on examination of the record it is found that no expenses were disallowed under section 14A of the Act by the assessee company so far as direct and indirect expenses are concerned. This observation of the Assessing Officer clearly indicates that he has not examined the claim of the assessee even though it was filed during the course of hearing and also in the computation of income said disallowance has been added to the net profit in the profit and loss account. Thereafter we notice that at the time of concluding the assessment order the ld. Assessing Officer has referred to the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee at Rs.8,355/- and has reduced the same out of the disallowance calculated by the it under Rule 8D at Rs. 66,362/- .
The facts narrated above clearly indicates that the assessing officer has failed to comply with the provisions of sub-section (2) to Section 14A of the Act and since the ld. Assessing Officer has not complied to the said provisions and has not recorded proper satisfaction in respect of the correctness of the claim of the assessee, Assessment Year: 2014-15 Linear Dealers Pvt. Ltd.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Indiabulls Real Estate Limited, New Delhi vs DCIT Central Circle 12(1), New DelhiDelhi17 May 2024Allowed
Also relies on Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the necessary objective satisfaction as required by Section 14A(2) before invoking Rule 8D. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
- M/S. Unitech Infra- Con Ltd., New Delhi vs DCIT, New DelhiDelhi15 Nov 2019Allowed
Also relies on Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record his satisfaction in a speaking manner before invoking Rule 8D for disallowance under Section 14A. Therefore, the further disallowance made by the AO lacked statutory credent...
- Manipal Global Education Services Pvt Ltd… vs ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), BangaloreBangalore29 Jul 2025Allowed
Also relies on Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D. Consequently, the disallowance made under Section 14A was deleted, except for ...
- Kuntal Hasmukhlal Shah, Mumbai vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(1)…Mumbai12 Jan 2026Allowed
Also relies on Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT
The Tribunal held that Section 14A contemplates disallowance only of expenditure claimed as deduction and incurred in relation to exempt income. Expenditure not claimed as deduction cannot be disallowed. The AO failed to...
- Sicpa India Private Limited, Delhi vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax…Delhi17 Oct 2025Allowed
Also relies on Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer failed to record the mandatory satisfaction before invoking the provisions. Following its own previous decisions, the...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026