APAR CORPORATION PVT LTD, MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC6(1), MUMBAI
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, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd., held that since the assessee had already made a suo moto disallowance which was pari materia similar to and greater than the amount computable under Rule 8D, no further disallowance under Section 14A was warranted. The additional disallowance made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in immovable property and investments, filed its return for AY 2017-18. The AO made an additional disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, which was partially upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed, contending that it had already made a suo moto disallowance of expenses related to exempt income, which was more than the amount calculable under Rule 8D.
What were the issues?
Whether an additional disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made when the assessee has already suo moto disallowed expenses relatable to exempt income, exceeding the amount calculated by the Revenue under Rule 8D.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 14A,Section 8D,Section 37(1),Section 250,Section 139(1),Section 143(3)
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 citing81 Taxmann.com 111 · 2017 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN& SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,मु�बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6.
आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, स�ािपत �ित //True Copy//
उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु�बई मु�बई / ITAT, Mumbai मु�बई मु�बई
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 →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026