M/S.SPERO FOUNDATION PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF iNCOME
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 06.12.2020 and was awaiting orders. In light of this subsequent event, the Court directed the Competent Authority to process the declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. The assessee was granted liberty to restore these appeals if the ultimate decision on their declaration was not in their favour. If restoration was sought, the Registry was directed to entertain the miscellaneous petitions without insisting on condonation of delay. Consequently, the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals were left undecided. The appeals were disposed of with the aforementioned liberty, and no costs were imposed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s. Spero Foundation Pvt. Ltd., filed two appeals (TCA.Nos.306 & 307 of 2018) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against the common order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai. The appeals pertained to the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee challenged the ITAT's decision upholding the disallowance of certain expenditures. The Revenue was represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The appeals were filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the assessee filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 06.12.2020.
What were the issues?
The High Court was to decide the following substantial questions of law: TCA.No.306 of 2018: 1. Whether the ITAT's upholding of disallowance of expenditure as relatable to rental income was perverse, given that the expenditure related to a newly started service apartment business with income declared under 'business income'? (Section 37) 2. Whether expenditure incurred for the service apartment business, assessed as business income, should be allowed under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether the ITAT was right in upholding a proportionate disallowance of expenditure to rental income, despite the existence of a service apartment business assessed as business income? TCA.No.307 of 2018: 1. Whether the ITAT was right in holding that the claim of expenditure was subject to disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962? 2. Whether the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can exceed the exempt income earned during the year? 3. Whether upholding disallowance under Section 14A, after disallowance of expenditure relatable to house property income, amounts to double disallowance? 4. Whether Section 14A read with Rule 8D is attracted even if no expenditure was incurred in connection with exempt income earned from investments made out of own funds? Assessee's contentions (implied from questions): Expenditure was for service apartment business and should be allowed under Section 37. Disallowance under Section 14A was incorrect, potentially leading to double disallowance, and could not exceed exempt income. The Revenue's contentions were not explicitly recorded.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.Nos.306 & 307 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.12.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.306 & 307 of 2018 & CMP.No.6114 of 2018
M/s.Spero Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-18 ...Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Ward 6(2), Chennai-34 ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 04.9.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.Nos.1189 and 1572/Mds/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. For Appellant: Ms.Sriranjani for Mr.G.Baskar For Respondent: Mr.J.Narayanasamy, SSC COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by
T.S.SIVAGNANAM
,J)
These appeals have been filed by the assessee under Section 1/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.306 & 307 of 2018 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging the common order dated 04.9.2017 made in I.T.A.Nos.1189 and 1572/ Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'B' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has filed these appeals by raising the following substantial questions of law: “TCA.No.306 of 2018 : i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was perverse in upholding that disallowance of expenditure as relatable to rental income without appreciating that the expenditure has no nexus to the rental income, but relates to the newly started service apartment business during the year, income on which was declared under the head 'business income'? ii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not holding that expenditure incurred for the purpose of service apartment business, income from which was assessed as business income should be allowed under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? and 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.306 & 307 of 2018 iii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the disallowance of expenditure made on proportionate basis to the rental income even though the appellant had service apartment business, income from which was assessed as business income ? TCA.No.307 of 2018 : i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding the claim of expenditure by the appellant is subject to disallowance under the provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ? ii. Whether the disallowance under the provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 can exceed the exempt income earned during the year ? iii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 since the disallowance of 96% of the expenditure towards the personnel and administrative as relatable to 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.306 & 307 of 2018 income from house property is upheld, the disallowance once again under Section 14A would amount to double disallowance i.e once under Section 24 of the Act and again under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962? iv. Whether the provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 would be attracted even if there is no expenditure incurred in connection with exempt income earned from the investments made out of own source of funds?” 3. We have heard Ms.Sriranjani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee and Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Revenue. 4. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant/assessee submits that the assessee already filed the declaration/undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 06.12.2020 and is awaiting orders to be passed in Form No.3. 5. In the light of the subsequent event, the Competent Authority shall process the applications/declarations in accordance with the 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.306 & 307 of 2018 Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. The assessee is given liberty to restore these appeals in the event the ultimate decision to be taken on the declarations filed by the assessee under Section 4 of the said Act is not in favour of the assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any applications to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeals and on such request made by the assessee by filing miscellaneous petitions for restoration, the Registry shall place such petitions before the appropriate Division Bench for orders. 6. The tax case appeals stand disposed of with the aforementioned liberty. Consequently, the substantial questions of law raised are left open. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is closed. 07.12.2020 To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Ward 6(2), Chennai-34. RS 5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.306 & 307 of 2018 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.Nos.306 & 307 of 2018 and CMP.No.6114 of 2018 07.12.2020 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 37
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company…ITA 933/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company…ITA 932/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company…ITA 931/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company… vs The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), VadodaraITA 768/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
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