M/S RATTHA HOLDINGS COMPANY vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, by referring to its own prior judgment in M/s. Marg Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai (dated 30.09.2020), held that the disallowance under Rule 8D of the IT Rules read with Section 14A of the Act can never exceed the exempted income earned by the assessee during the particular assessment year. Furthermore, the Court stated that the Assessing Authority cannot resort to the computation method under Rule 8D without recording its satisfaction that the apportionment of disallowable expenditure made by the assessee with respect to the exempted income is not acceptable, and that reasons must be assigned for such dissatisfaction. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the appeal by remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue regarding disallowance under Section 14A for the Assessment Year 2010-2011 in accordance with the law laid down in the cited precedent. The issue of the amount of disallowance was left to be decided by the Assessing Officer.
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s. Rattha Holdings Company Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai Bench. The appeal challenged the ITAT's decision concerning the invocation of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The core of the dispute was whether these provisions could be applied when the assessee had not earned any exempt income in the relevant previous year. The assessment year in question is not explicitly stated for the original assessment but the ITAT order being appealed is dated 13.04.2016 in ITA No. 2052/Mds/2015. The High Court's judgment is dated 28.10.2020.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in invoking Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962, even though the assessee had earned no exempt income in the relevant previous year? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that Section 14A and Rule 8D cannot be invoked if no exempt income has been earned in the relevant assessment year. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempted income earned. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that Section 14A and Rule 8D are applicable even in the absence of exempt income, and the disallowance can be computed irrespective of whether exempt income was earned. The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's specific arguments beyond the implicit challenge to the assessee's position.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Judgment in T.C.A. No. 735 of 2012 M/s. Rattha Holdings Company Pvt. Ltd. V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.10.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH T.C.A. No. 735 of 2017 M/s. Rattha Holdings Company Pvt. Ltd., 37, TTK Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. PAN: AACCR8160 ..Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 5(1), 121, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034. ..Respondent Prayer: Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench "C" dated 13.04.2016 in ITA No. 2052/Mds/2015. For Appellant :: Mr.R. Sivaraman For Respondent :: Mr.T. Ravikumar, Sr. Standing Counsel J U D G M E N T 1\4 http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment in T.C.A. No. 735 of 2012 M/s. Rattha Holdings Company Pvt. Ltd. V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai (By Dr.Vineet Kothari,J.) The only question which arises in the present Appeal filed by the Assessee is as hereunder: "Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in invoking Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8 D of Income Tax Rules, 1962, even though the assessee had earned no exempt income in the relevant previous year?". 2. This controversy has been put to rest by the judgment dated 30.09.2020 of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Marg Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai in which this Court has held as hereunder: “22. We, therefore, dispose of the present appeal by answering question of law in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue and by holding that the disallowance under Rule 8D of the IT Rules read with Section 14A of the Act can never exceed the exempted income earned by the Assessee during the particular assessment year and further, without recording the satisfaction by the Assessing Authority that the apportionment of 2\4 http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment in T.C.A. No. 735 of 2012 M/s. Rattha Holdings Company Pvt. Ltd. V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai such disallowable expenditure made by the Assessee with respect to the exempted income is not acceptable for reasons to be assigned the Assessing Authority, he cannot resort to the computation method under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 3. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the Appeal is disposed of by remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue regarding disallowance under Section 14A of the Income DR. VINEET KOTHARI,J. AND M.S. RAMESH,J. nv Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2010-2011 in accordance with the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case. 4. The Tax Case Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. (V.K.J.) (M.S.R.J.) nv 28.10.2020 To 3\4 http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment in T.C.A. No. 735 of 2012 M/s. Rattha Holdings Company Pvt. Ltd. V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "C" Bench. T.C.A.No. 735 of 2017 4\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 Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026