SURYAMANI FINANCING COMPANY LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), KOLKATA,, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D should only consider investments yielding exempt income. The AO was directed to recompute the disallowance based on this principle.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed business expenditures despite earning substantial exempt dividend income. The Assessing Officer invoked Section 14A and Rule 8D, disallowing ₹5,75,293/-. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, stating expenses were incurred for earning exempt income.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance under Section 14A and Rule 8D should be restricted to investments that actually yielded exempt income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH AT KOLKATA
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s). 1948/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2010-11 Suryamani Financing ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata Company Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 9, Ezra Street, Top Floor, Room Vs. Chowringhee Square,, No.47,, Kolkata, West Bengal, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700001 700069 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AADCS5559E Appearances: Assessee represented by : Manoj Kataruka AR. Department represented by : Nicholas Murmu, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 30.07.2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 25.08.2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Coimbatore [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘Addl/JCIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Act for AY 2010-11 dated 11.12.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the action of the Ld. CIT(A) to confirm the addition made by the A.O. of Rs.5,75,293/- u/s 14A of the Act is illegal and bad in law.
“5.7 From the reasons recorded by the AO it is observed that the trading activities done by the appellant was only once in each month and that does not require much expenditure and the investment made by the appellant as on 31.03.2020 is Rs.80,29,41,833/- which investment decisions requires management personnel and professional experts which needs administrative, managerial and establishment expenses including the expenses related to depreciable assets used by the
Deputy/Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata
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 →- 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
- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026