THE DCIT, (OSD)-I, CIRCLE-4, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KARGIL HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, citing a CBDT circular. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection, upholding the disallowance of administrative expenditure.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against a partial disallowance of Rs. 1,24,000 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee filed a cross-objection challenging this disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for administrative expenses is justified, and whether the Revenue's appeal should be pressed given the low tax effect.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH AHMEDABAD
PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection for assessment year 2011-12 arise against the CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad’s order dated 02.03.2015 in case no. CIT(A)-2/DCIT (O )-1, Cir.4/189/2013-14, partly upholding Assessing Officer’s action making Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance of ITA No. 1459/Ahd/15 with 177/Ahd/15 [M/s. Kargil Holding Pvt. Ltd.] - 2 – A.Y. 2011-12
Rs.20,91,588/- to the extent of Rs.1,24,000/- only pertaining to administrative expenditure @.5%, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
We notice at the outset that the Revenue’s sole substantive ground seeks to revive disallowance of interest expenditure amounting to Rs.19,67,223/- made by the Assessing Officer as deleted in lower appellate proceedings. Learned Departmental Representative fails to dispute that the net tax effect in the instant appeal is less than Rs.10 lacs. We find that the Central Board of Direct Taxes; hereafter the ‘Board’ has issued the circular no. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 clearly envisaging therein that department’s pending appeals before the tribunal/high courts are to be withdrawn/not pressed as per the above stated circular. The same has been declared to be having retrospective effect in other words. We take into consideration the above stated Board’s circular and dismiss the instant appeal accordingly. The Revenue’s appeal ITA No.1459/Ahd/2015 is dismissed for involving low tax effect.
We advert to assessee’s Cross Objection No.177/Ahd/2015 seeking to reverse both the lower authorities’ action disallowing administrative expenditure of Rs.1,24,000/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules as pertaining to the exempt income in question in the nature of dividend to the tune of Rs. 1,81,76,516/-. We notice that the CIT(A) has already entered into a detailed discussion that the assessee has incurred indirect administrative expenditure in reviewing its investments/maintaining activities of the stock holding activity in the relevant previous year. Learned counsel fails to dispute the fact that the above computation formula prescribed under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules is applicable from assessment year 2008-09 onwards. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the impugned administrative
ITA No. 1459/Ahd/15 with 177/Ahd/15 [M/s. Kargil Holding Pvt. Ltd.] - 3 – A.Y. 2011-12
expenditure disallowance. The same stands confirmed. Assessee’s cross objection fails accordingly.
The Revenue’s appeal ITA No.1459/Ahd/2015 as well as assessee’s Cross Objection i.e. C.O. No.177/Ahd/2015 are therefore dismissed.
[Pronounced in the open Court on this the 30th day of January, 2018.] (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 30/01/2018S.K.SINHA आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज"व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं"धत आयकर आयु"त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु"त- अपील / CIT (A)
"वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड" फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।
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 →- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026