JAYPEE FORGE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4079/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 August 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4079/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jaypee Forge Private Limited 1106 G Square Jawahar Road NR BMC Office Ghatkopar (East) Mumbai - 400077 [PAN: AAACJ1662KJ] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Aditya Ramchandran, A/R Revenue by : Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: आदेश/ORDER : 04/08/2025 07/08/2025 PER NA1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO should consider only those investments that yield exempt income when computing disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, following a Special Bench decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income and claimed exemptions under Section 10. The AO noted a suo moto disallowance made by the assessee and then invoked Section 14A read with Rule 8D to compute a higher disallowance, making an addition to the total income.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO erred in considering all investments made by the assessee for disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, instead of only those yielding exempt income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10,Section 14A,Section 8D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ramchandran, A/R
Hearing: 04/08/2025Pronounced: 07/08/2025

Assessee by : Shri Aditya Ramchandran, A/R Revenue by : Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 07/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/Addl./ JCIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam [hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT(A)’] dated 21/05/2025 pertaining to AY 2017-18.

2.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 9,23,013/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income electronically on 26/10/2017 declaring total income at Rs. 2,10,17,240/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. While scrutinizing the return of income, the AO noticed that the assessee 2 has claimed exemption u/s 10 of the Act totaling to Rs. 18,85,679/-. The AO found that the assessee has made a suo moto disallowance of Rs. 51,587/- and exempt long term capital gain of Rs. 18,34,092/-. The AO found that the assessee has made a suo moto disallowance of Rs. 51,587/- u/s 14A of the Act. Invoking the provisions u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D, the AO computed the disallowance at Rs. 9,74,600/- and refusing the suo moto disallowance, made addition of Rs. 9,23,013/-. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 3. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that while computing the disallowance, the AO has taken all the investments of the assessee whereas he should have considered only those investments which yielded exempt income. Per contra, the ld. D/R strongly supported the findings of the AO. 4. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. It is an undisputed fact that while invoking Rule 8D for the computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, the AO has considered all the investments made by the assessee. Before us, the assessee has furnished a chart of investments which yielded exempt income. We are of the considered view that the AO should consider only those investments which yield exempt income as held by the Special Bench in the case of ACIT v/s Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 58 ITR (T.) 313. 5. We accordingly restore the issue to the file of the AO. The assessee is directed to furnish the details of investments which yield exempt income and the AO is directed to examine the same and decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

More judgments on Section 10

All 591 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →