INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SIDDHANT COMMERCIALS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objection regarding the AO's satisfaction for invoking Rule 8D. It also dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s directions for verification and the restricted disallowance.
What were the facts?
The assessee earned substantial dividend income and made a small suo motu disallowance under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer disallowed a much larger amount under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The CIT(A) directed verification of the assessee's claims regarding interest-free funds and nexus of finance costs with taxable income, and restricted the disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether the Assessing Officer properly recorded satisfaction to invoke Rule 8D, and whether the CIT(A) erred in directing verification and restricting the disallowance under Section 14A.
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: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:
- The captioned appeal has been filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection thereof has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order dated 21.04.2025, passed under Section 250 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], relevant to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in d
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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 →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026
