COMPETENT HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for an identical assessment year, directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 10% of the exempt income. This means the disallowance was not entirely deleted but was reduced.
What were the facts?
The assessee earned dividend income which was claimed as exempt. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed expenses under Section 14A, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee's appeal before the ITAT argued that the disallowance was incorrect.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A for exempt dividend income was justified, and if so, to what extent.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH. YOGESH KUMAR US
PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-33, New Delhi dated 13.09.2018 pertaining to A.Y.2014-15.
The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.577221/- made u/s. 14A of the Act.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee earned dividend income of Rs.9,97,226/- which was claimed as exempt u/s.10 (34) of the Act.
During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to explain why the disallowance u/s.14A should not be made. 5. In its reply the assessee stated that the dividend income has been earned from the shares held as stock in trade duly reflected in its financial statements. The reply of the assessee did not find any favour with the AO who proceed by computing the disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r 8D and made addition of Rs.577221/-. 6. The assessee agitated the matter before the CIT(A) but without any success. 7. Before us the counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2013- 14 and pointed out that on identical set of facts the Tribunal has deleted the disallowance. 8. The DR placed strong reliance on the orders of the authorities below but could not bring any distinguish decision in favour of the revenue. 9. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below and find that on identical disallowance was considered by this Tribunal (supra). The relevant findings of the coordinate Bench read as under :-
Respectfully, following the findings of the coordinate Bench we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to Rs.997226/- being 10% of the exempt income.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 12. The order is pronounced in the open court on 15.02.2022 in the presence of both the rival representatives.
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 →- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Maa Bhawani Minrals vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026