THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the dividend income. Since the assessee had already suo moto disallowed an amount greater than the dividend income, the addition made by the AO was not justifiable.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer had disallowed Rs. 70,19,014/- after considering the assessee's suo moto disallowance of Rs. 3,80,02,442/- on dividend income.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can exceed the dividend income earned by the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED&
The instant appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 25.07.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Ahmedabad arising out of the order dated 21.06.2016 passed by the Learned DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2014-15.
The assessee company engaged in the business of providing financial assistance to industrial units, filed its return of income on 25.09.2014 for A.Y. 2014-15 declaring loss at Rs.(-) 1,24,34,01,133/-. Upon scrutiny notice u/s 143(2) dated 03.09.2015 was issued followed by a notice dated 08.04.2016 u/s 143(2) r.w.s. 129 due to change of incumbent and served upon the assessee. The said assessment was finalized inter alia upon making - 2 - The ACIT vs. M/s. Gujarat State Financial Corporation Asst.Year – 2014-15 disallowances of Rs.70,19,014/- u/s 14A r.w.s 8D of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee, which was in turn deleted by the Learned CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us.
The case of the assessee is this that the assessee has received dividend income on share of Rs.17,26,532/-. The details of investment in shares and working of disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act as filed by the assessee was not found acceptable by the Learned AO. It is relevant to mention that the assessee itself has suo moto disallowed Rs.3,80,02,442/-. Taking into consideration the entire aspect of the mater, the Learned AO disallowed Rs.70,19,014/- upon application of section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act. While doing so, the suo moto disallowance of Rs.3,80,02,442/- has been adjusted from the total disallowance of Rs.4,50,21,456/-/- as worked out by the Learned AO. It is a settled principle of law that the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D cannot exceed the amount of dividend income and on the basis of such principle the Learned CIT(A) deleted the addition since the assessee has already suo moto disallowed of Rs.3,80,02,442/-. Thus the disallowance made by the Learned AO to the tune of Rs.70,19,014/- invoking the provision of Section 14A r.w.r. 8D was not found justifiable and the same was deleted by the Learned CIT(A) in appeal.
At the time of hearing of the instant appeal, the Learned AR submitted before us that the issue is squarely covered in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 whereby and whereunder such addition made by the Learned AO has been deleted by the Learned CIT(A). A copy whereof has also been submitted before us. However, the Learned DR has not been able to make out any better case against such contentions made by the Learned AR.
Heard the respective parties, perused the relevant materials available on record and also considered the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in Assessee’s own case in - 3 - The ACIT vs. M/s. Gujarat State Financial Corporation Asst.Year – 2014-15 for A.Y. 2012-13 where identical addition in the identical set of facts made by the Learned AO applying section 14A r.w.r. 8D has been deleted. Hence we find no ambiguity in the order impugned so as to warrant interference. The order is thus passed in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Hence, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
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 →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026