PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-7 vs. M/S PUSHPANJALI FINCON PVT. LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that questions A, B, and C were covered by a previous judgment. For question D, concerning disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), the court issued notice to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order deleting a disallowance of Rs. 25.30 crores made under Section 14A. The disallowance related to interest expenditure incurred on borrowed funds for investments yielding non-taxable income.
What were the issues?
Whether interest expenditure incurred for investments yielding non-taxable income is disallowable under Section 14A, and whether interest expenditure directly linked to business can be disallowed under Section 36(1)(iii) if the business is not investment-related.
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.
- Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT1,569 citing378 ITR 33 · 2015 · HC · Read judgment
- Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT683 citing81 Taxmann.com 111 · 2017 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.543 citing326 ITR 1 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
$~66 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 518/2022
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-7..... Appellant Through: Mr Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Vipul Agrawal and Mr Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing Counsels.
versus
M/S PUSHPANJALI FINCON PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
O R D E R %
08.12.2022 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] 1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/revenue against the order dated 01.10.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short “Tribunal”]. The Tribunal via the instant appeal has proposed the following questions of law: “A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 25.30 crores made u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, without appreciating that the direct interest expenditure incurred by the assessee on borrowed funds to make investments in relation to income which does not form a part of the total income under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not allowable under section 14A of the Act? This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:01:49
B. Whether disallowance u/s 14A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would stand attracted even if such income, i.e. income not includible in the total income, is not actually earned, subject to expenditure relatable to such income having been incurred? C. Whether the Ld. ITAT erred in law in ignoring the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. 326 ITR 1 (SC), followed in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111 (SC), in the context of the Memorandum explaining the provisions Finance Bill, 2001 (introducing section 14A) as well as the Notes to the Clauses presented along with the said Bill, as follows:“The insertion of section 14A with retrospective effect is the serious attempt on the part of Parliament not to allow deduction in respect of any expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income, which does not form part of the total income under the Act against the taxable income (see Circular No. 14 of 2001 dated November 22, 2001). In other words, section 14A clarifies that expenses incurred can be allowed only to the extent they are relatable to the earning of taxable income ”? D. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT erred in law in holding that no disallowance of Rs. 25.30 crores being the interest expenditure can be made u/s 36(l)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 since the interest expenditure and interest income were directly linked to the business of the assessee, without appreciating that as per the Memorandum of Association of the Company, its business activity relates to consultancy in financial matted and not to earn income from investments made, and that the assessee itself has shown its interest receipt as :other income: in its computation of income?”
Mr Zoheb Hossain, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue cannot but accept, that the first three questions i.e., A, B and C are covered by the judgment of a coordinate This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:01:49
Bench of this Court rendered in Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33. 3. Insofar as the fourth question is concerned i.e., the question marked as D hereinabove, issue notice to the respondent/assessee by all modes, including e-mail. 4. List the matter on 29.03.2023. 5. The notice issued to respondent/assessee will be accompanied by a copy of the order passed today. 6. Counsel for the parties will file their written submissions, not exceeding three pages each, at least five days before the next date of hearing.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MINI PUSHKARNA, J DECEMBER 8, 2022 nn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:01:49
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 →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026