JAIDEEP HALWASIYA,INDIA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, INDIA
What did the Tribunal hold?
Following the Supreme Court decision in Caraf Builders & Construction Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income earned. The enhancement by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which enhanced the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D to Rs. 28,91,512/-, after the assessee had itself disallowed Rs. 3,13,450/- against earned exempt income of Rs. 1,25,000/-.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A r.w.r 8D can exceed the exempt income earned. Whether enhancement of disallowance by AO is justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2 v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.) Ltd.71 citing112 Taxmann.com 322 · 2019 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
Date of Hearing : 22.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench :
The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 [in short “CIT(A)”] vide order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1070686700(1) dated 27.11.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the assessment year 2016-17.
Jaideep Halwasiya, AY: 2016-17 2. Ms. Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue and Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate along with Ms. Lata Goyal, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee.
It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the only issue in the assessee’s appeal was against the action of the disallowance made by invoking the provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D of the I. T. Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). It was the submission that the assessee had earned exempt income to an extent of Rs.1,25,000/-. The assessee for the said amount had disallowed expenses u/s. 14A of the Act to an extent of Rs.3,13,450/-. It was the submission that Ld. CIT(A) has upheld enhancement of the disallowance to Rs.28,91,512/-. It was submitted by the ld. AR that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Caraf Builders & Construction Pvt. Ltd. reported in 112 taxman.com 322 (SC) the disallowance u/s. 14A read with rule 8D could not exceed the exempt income earned. It was the submission that the disallowance as made by the AO may be deleted.
In reply, the Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Caraf Builders & Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra) clearly shows that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the finding of the Hon’ble High Court wherein it has been specifically held that the disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income for the relevant year. This being so, and respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Caraf Builders & Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the enhancement made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 14A of the Act stands deleted. However, the disallowance as made by the assessee to the extent of Rs.3,13,540/- shall remain.
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 →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026