ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was unwarranted as the assessee's own funds were sufficient to cover investments. Regarding disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute it considering only dividend-yielding investments, following a previous decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for expenses incurred in relation to exempt income. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed a significant portion of these expenses, both under normal provisions and for book profit. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance under normal provisions but deleted it for book profit.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for exempt income is justified, and whether such disallowance should apply to book profit under Section 115JB.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(9)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.
- CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.2,118 citing313 ITR 340 · 2009 · HC
- CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.1,261 citing366 ITR 505 · 2014 · HC
- ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.789 citing82 Taxmann.com 415 · 2017 · HC
- GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT663 citing327 ITR 456 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
- South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT508 citing130 Taxmann.com 178 · 2021 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.501 citing410 ITR 466 · 2019 · SC
- CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.196 citing336 ITR 513 · 2010 · HC
- ACIT v. Crompton Greaves Ltd.41 citing111 Taxmann.com 338 · 2019 · ITAT
- Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. ITO21 citing264 ITR 193 · 2003 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These appeals by the assessee and Revenue are arising out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Ap
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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 →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026