PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 vs. SYNPOL PRODUCTS PVT LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding Question [A] (Section 14A disallowance): The Tribunal deleted the disallowance. The reasoning was that the assessee maintained separate books of accounts for eligible and ineligible units. The Assessing Officer should have pointed out specific expenditures incurred for earning income in the EOU unit, rather than artificially apportioning expenditure based on production or sales. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's accounting method was not disturbed in earlier years. The High Court found that the issue was factual and no question of law arose as the Tribunal had found the accounts properly maintained. Regarding Question [B] (Section 10B disallowance): The High Court stated that this question pertained to an 'extremely small' sum and therefore, the court did not entertain the question on this ground. The judgment does not detail the Tribunal's specific finding on this issue, only that the High Court chose not to decide it based on the amount. Regarding Question [C] (Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance): The Tribunal confirmed the view of the CIT(A) in favour of the Revenue. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to separate disallowances pertaining to the EOU unit, as such disallowances would increase the EOU's profit and potentially its exemption claim. The High Court found no error in this view. Operative Directions: The Tax Appeal was dismissed.
What were the facts?
This Tax Appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4 (Revenue) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal concerned Assessment Year(s) not explicitly stated but implied to be related to the assessment years for which the Tribunal's order was passed. The order under challenge was the Tribunal's decision on various disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. The amounts in dispute were Rs. 3,12,683/- under Section 14A and Rs. 39,91,098/- under Section 10B. The procedural history involved appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and then the Tribunal. The Revenue is challenging the deletion of these disallowances by the Tribunal.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide the following questions of law: 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,12,683/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of excess claim of Rs. 39,91,098/- under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee for these issues. However, the Tribunal's reasoning suggests the assessee argued that separate books of accounts were maintained for eligible and ineligible units, and the Assessing Officer could not artificially apportion expenditure. The assessee also relied on the fact that their accounting method was not disturbed in earlier years. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the Assessing Officer had grounds to disallow claims under Section 10B by finding inflated profits in the EOU unit. For Section 14A, the Revenue sought to uphold the disallowance. The judgment also mentions that the Revenue stated Question-C framed in the appeal did not arise.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
At the outset, counsel for the Revenue stated that QuestionC framed in this Tax Appeal does not arise.
The two surviving questions read as under: “[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.3,12,683/ u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act? [B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of excess claim of Rs.39,91,098/ u/s of 10B of the Income Tax Act?”
Both these questions have been considered by us in a separate order passed today in Tax Appeal C/TAXAP/532/2018 ORDER No.524 of 2018 and connected appeal in following manner:
“3. QuestionA pertains to disallowance of claim of exemption under section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), ordered by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee had inflated the profit of the unit eligible for exemption, being an EOU unit. The Commissioner of Income
Tax
(Appeals) examined
the individual heads where the Assessing Officer had found inflation and partially confirmed the Assessing Officer's finding while giving partial relief to the assessee. The Tribunal in further appeal by the assessee, deleted the entire disallowance, inter alia, observing that the assessee had maintained separate books of accounts for both the units; eligible and ineligible. The Assessing Officer ought to have pointed out a particular expenditure incurred for earning income in the EOU. He could not have artificially apportioned the expenditure merely on the basis of production of the stakes. The Tribunal also noted that in the earlier years, the accounting method adopted by the assessee was not disturbed by the Assessing Officer.
From the perusal of the materials on record, it can be seen that entire issue is factual in nature. The Tribunal having found that the accounts of the assessee were properly maintained and could not have disturbed by the Assessing Officer mechanically applying the ratio of production or sell of two units, no question of law arises.
QuestionB pertains to a sum which is extremely small and we are therefore do not entertain this question on this ground. C/TAXAP/532/2018 ORDER
QuestionC pertains to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on the ground that on several payments made in excess of Rs.50,000/ though required, tax was not deducted at source. The Tribunal in this respect confirmed the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and to that extent held in favour of the Revenue. While doing so, the Tribunal provided that the Assessing Officer would separate out those disallowances pertaining to the EOU unit. If a particular disallowance of expenditure pertains to EOU unit, the profit of such unit would increase and resultantly, the claim of exemption may also go up. We find no error in the view of the Tribunal.
In the result, both the Tax Appeals are dismissed.”
In the result, this Tax Appeal is also dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) ANKIT SHAH
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 Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
