M/S. ENAM HOLDING PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A r.w.r 8D should only be computed on investments that have actually yielded exempt income, as per pronouncements by the Delhi High Court and a Special Bench of the Tribunal. The AO was directed to recompute the disallowance accordingly.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged a disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Act. The AO's disallowance was higher than what the assessee voluntarily offered, based on total investments.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A r.w.r 8D should be based on total investments or only those yielding exempt income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.882 citing165 ITD 27 · 2017 · ITAT
- ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT364 citing374 ITR 108 · 2015 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 18.11.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2018-19.
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 27.02.2021 determined the disallowance as per section 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short “the Rules”) to the tune of Rs.1,56,17,271/- as against the disallowance of Rs.62,62,523/- as voluntarily offered by the Assessee and consequently added the amount of Rs.93,54,748/- (1,56,17,271/- - Rs.62,62,523/-) in the income of the Assessee being disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Rules.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said disallowance by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner and mainly claimed that the Assessing Officer (AO) has considered all the investments made by the Assessee, whereas it is a fact that all investments have not yielded exempt income during the year under consideration. Therefore, if any disallowance is to be made, then the same be restricted in respect of those investments, which have yielded the exempt income during the AY under consideration but not the total investments, as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del.) and Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Delhi) (SB).
The Ld. D.R. though refuted the claim of the Assessee but not the judgments referred to above.
Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. (supra) has held clearly that average value of investments for the purposes of rule 8D should be confined to those securities in respect of which exempt income is earned and not the total investments. Further, the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. (supra) has also taken a view that only such investments in calculating the average value of investments, which have yielded exempt income during the year, should be taken into consideration for making the disallowance u/r 8D of the Rules but not those investments, which have not earned any exempt income.
Thus considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, we direct the JAO to consider the investments, which have actually yielded exempt income, for making the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the Rules only and recompute the disallowance accordingly.
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29.08.2025.
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 →- Dikshant Nim vs. Union Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Pankaj Patil vs. Branch Manager Hdfc BankMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Rudra Pratap Singh vs. The Union Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
