THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S.ABHI AMBI FINANCIAL
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the matter deserved to be remitted back to the Assessing Authority for a correct application of Rule 8D and a proper computation of the disallowance amount under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court was of the clear opinion that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempted income disclosed and assessed. The Court reasoned that the purpose of Section 14A is to disallow expenditure incurred to earn exempted income, and such disallowance should not be greater than the exempted income itself. The Court noted that Tribunals often adopt a norm of 2% of exempted income as a permissible disallowance. Therefore, a fresh examination by the Assessing Authority was necessary. The appeal was disposed of without answering the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue, and the matter was remitted.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'C' Bench, dated 22.04.2016. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, M/s. Abhi Ambi Financial Services Ltd. The assessment year in question was 2010-11. The core dispute concerned a disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, pertaining to expenditure incurred to earn exempted income.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, can exceed the exempted income in the hands of the assessee? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The disallowance computed by the Assessing Officer was impermissible as it far exceeded the exempted income earned by the assessee. The assessee relied on the principle that expenditure disallowed cannot be more than the income it was intended to earn. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the Revenue supported the order passed by the Assessing Authority, implying adherence to the assessment made.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Judgment dt.04.04.2019 in T.C.A.No.179 of 2017 [The Commissioner of Income Tax .V. Abhi Ambi Financial Services] 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.04.2019 CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
T.C.(A).No.179 of 2017
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. .. Appellant ..Vs.. M/s.Abhi Ambi Financial Services Ltd 327, Sterling Tower Anna Salai, Teyampet Chennai 600 006. PANO:AAACA9181H
.. Respondent Prayer : Tax Case (Appeal) is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench, dated 22.04.2016 passed in I.T.A.NO.1855/Mds/2014 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : M/s.Sandeep Bagmar http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment dt.04.04.2019 in T.C.A.No.179 of 2017 [The Commissioner of Income Tax .V. Abhi Ambi Financial Services] 2/4 J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J.) The Revenue has filed this Appeal raising the purported Substantial Questions of Law arising from the order of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 22.04.2016, dismissing the Revenue's Appeal and allowing the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The issue involved before the learned Tribunal was about the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act r/w Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, which permits such disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn exempted income. 3. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that the disallowance made by the Assessing authority far exceeded the exempted income in the hands of the Assessee itself which is not permissible in law. http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment dt.04.04.2019 in T.C.A.No.179 of 2017 [The Commissioner of Income Tax .V. Abhi Ambi Financial Services] 3/4 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Revenue supported the Impugned Order passed by the Assessing Authority. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the matter deserves to be remitted back to the Assessing Authority for correct application of Rule 8D and computation of disallowance amount under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as we are of the clear opinion that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempted income disclosed and assessed by the Assessing Authority. The purpose of Section 14A of the Act was very clear that the expenditure incurred to earn exempted income cannot be allowed as a deduction. Normally, in such cases the Tribunal has adopted the norm of 2% of exempted income as permissible disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. Therefore, the matter deserves to be examined by the Assessing Authority once again. 6. Accordingly, this Appeal is disposed of without answering the Substantial Questions of Law raised by the Revenue and the matter is http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment dt.04.04.2019 in T.C.A.No.179 of 2017 [The Commissioner of Income Tax .V. Abhi Ambi Financial Services] 4/4 DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI,J and MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J arr remitted back to the Assessing Authority for determination of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. No order as to costs.
(V.K.,J.) (C.V.K.,J.) 04.04.2019 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No arr To 1. The Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax CO.Range-I, Chennai-34. 1. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai. T.C.(A).No.179 of 2017 http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment dt.04.04.2019 in T.C.A.No.179 of 2017 [The Commissioner of Income Tax .V. Abhi Ambi Financial Services] 5/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
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 Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026