JAYPEE INFRA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 13(2), NEW DELHI
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 deleted the disallowance of Rs.4,35,00,600/- under Section 14A, following its own prior decision and a Delhi High Court ruling. The AO had not provided reasons for rejecting the assessee's suo-moto disallowance.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a suo-moto disallowance of Rs.26,06,419/- under Section 14A. The AO enhanced this disallowance to Rs.7,42,37,499/-. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to the exempted income of Rs.4,35,00,000/-.
What were the issues?
Whether the Assessing Officer can enhance a suo-moto disallowance under Section 14A without providing reasons for rejecting the assessee's working. The extent to which disallowance under Section 14A can be made.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)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
- Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT516 citing347 ITR 272 · 2012 · HC
- PCIT v. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.69 citing414 ITR 122 · 2019 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA
This appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 28.06.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi [hereinafter, the ‘CIT(A)’].
The assessee, vide ground nos. 1 to 3, has challenged the impugned order sustain the disallowance of Rs.4,35,00,000/- under Section 14A of the
The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant assessee, engaged in the business of designing and technical consultancy services to various infrastructural projects, filed its Income Tax Act (ITR) of the relevant year on 26.10.2017 declaring income of Rs.7,43,45,940/- under normal provision and income of Rs.8,61,39,649/- under section 115JB of the Act. The case was picked up for scrutiny and consequential assessment was completed at income of Rs.14,85,83,440/- under normal provisions and at income of Rs.16,03,77,150/- under section 115JB of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) worked out the disallowance of Rs.12,39,14,341/- under section 14A of the Act r.w.s. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. However, he restricted the disallowance under section 14A of the Act to the extent of expenses of Rs.7,68,43,918/- claimed in the Profit & Loss Account of the assessee. Since the assessee has made suo-moto disallowance of Rs.26,06,419/- under section 14A of the Act in its ITR; therefore, the AO made disallowance of Rs.7,42,37,4990/- (Rs.7,68,43,918/- minus Rs.26,06,419/-) under section 14A of the Act. The sole disallowance of Rs.7,42,37,499/- made under section 14A of the Act has varied the assessed income worked out in both normal provisions and under section 115JB of the Act. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), which was partly allowed. The Ld. CIT(A), in principle upheld the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. However, he, following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the 2 Jaypee Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. case of Caraf Builders & Constructions (P) Ltd. 414 ITR 122, restricted the disallowance under section 14A of the Act to the extent of the exempted income of Rs.4,35,00,000/- under normal provisions of the Act. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.7,42,37,499/- (disallowance of Rs.7,42,37,499/- made under section 14A of the Act) in working out the book profit under section 115JB of the Act.
At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2014-15 in ITA No. 1484/Del/2023. He also drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jaypee Ventures Pvt. Ltd. in order dated 23.01.2018 (Jaypee Ventures Pvt. Ltd. stands amalgamated with the assessee company) to submit that the issue in dispute in the present case also got squarely covered by this decision. Further, it was contended that the AO had not given any reasoning for not accepting the assessee’s suo-moto working of disallowance of Rs.26,06,419/- under section 14A of the Act. Further, it was contended that the AO could not enhance the disallowance under section 14A of the Act without recording any reason for rejecting the assessee’s working of disallowance under section 14A of the Act.
The Ld. AR further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment vs. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 and Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC)
Jaypee Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. to submit that the application of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules is not mandatory. Further, it was submitted that the entire investments made by the appellant assessee were very old investment in group concerns and there was no transaction of purchase and sale during the relevant year. The dividend income of Rs.4,35,00,600/- was received from one of the group concerns; namely, Jaypee Development Corporation Ltd. The details of working of disallowance of Rs.26, 06,419/- was claimed to be sufficient in such circumstances wherein no purchase and sale of any investment was done during the relevant year. Alternatively, it was also submitted that the disallowance under section 14A could not exceed to the limit of investment which yielded dividend exempt income during the relevant year. The dividend income of Rs.4,35,00,600/-, received from Jaypee Development Corporation Ltd., was from the investment of Rs.395.46 crores. Hence, the disallowance should be restricted to Rs.3,95,46,000/- being 1% of the total investment made in Jaypee Development Corporation Ltd.
The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) argued the case vehemently and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on the record. We have taken note of the fact that the AO has not given any reasoning for rejecting the assessee’s suo-moto working of disallowance of Rs.26,06,419/- under section 14A of the Act. Further, it was contended that the AO could not enhance the disallowance under section 14A of the Act Jaypee Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. without recording any reason for rejecting the assessee’s working of disallowance under section 14A of the Act. We find that this case is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in (supra) and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jaypee Ventures Pvt. Ltd. in order dated 23.01.2018. We therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jaypee Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case (supra), we are inclined to delete the disallowance of Rs.4,35,00,600/- under section 14A of the Act confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, we order accordingly and allow the respective grounds raised by the assessee. The assessee gets consequential relief in this regard.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed as above.
Order pronounced in open Court on 20th June, 2025.
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 →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026