STATE INDUSTRIES PROMOTION CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that once the assessee claimed exempt income, the AO was justified in invoking Section 14A and making the disallowance. The orders of the lower authorities were affirmed.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed exempt dividend income but showed 'Nil' in the exempt income schedule of the return. The AO disallowed administrative expenses relatable to exempt income under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income under Section 14A is justified when the assessee claims exempt income but shows 'Nil' in the relevant schedule.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Mahavir Singh, Vice President :
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai, in dated 30.10.2017. The Assessment was framed by Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-6(2), Chennai for the relevant Assessment Year 2013-14 vide order dated 24.03.2016 u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the A.O in disallowing expenses relatable to exempt income by invoking the provisions of s.
14A of the Act r/w Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter ‘the Rules’) amounting to Rs. 4,37,227/-.
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted from the assessment order, arguments of both sides that only disallowance made by the A.O of expenses relatable to exempt income are administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules at 0.5% of average value of investment amounting to Rs. 4,37,227/-. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of A.O by noting that the assessee has exempted dividend income of Rs. 41,21,189/- which was claimed as exempt. He noted that the A.O has disallowed administrative expenses to the extent of Rs. 4,37,227/- and the assessee has not made any submission except that the aforesaid investment which gave rise to exempt income was made out of its own funds. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee has not ruled out the possibility of common expenditure incurred for investment in bonds and shares yielding exempt income. Therefore, he confirmed the disallowance.
We noted from the argument of the Ld. counsel for the assessee and from documents filed before us, that the assessee has not claimed any exemption and when pointed out from the documents that in the computation of income the assessee has claimed this exemption on account of dividend income. He drew our attention to the return of income Schedule-EI at Page-29 of assessee’s paper book, wherein the exempt income claimed as Nil. But the Ld. Sr. D.R pointed out from the computation of income that assessee has categorically claimed exemption in his computation which is amounting to Rs. 41,21,189/-. Once the assessee has claimed exempt income, the A.O has rightly invoked the provisions of s. 14A of the Act r/w Rule 8D(2) of the Rules and made disallowance of administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. We find no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities and hence, the orders of lower authorities are affirmed. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 18th August, 2022.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Delite Infrastructure Private Limited, New… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 954/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- 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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Jack And Jill vs. The Union Of INDIA And OrsGauhati · 5 Nov 2026
- Ms Akher Ali vs. The Union Of INDIAGauhati · 5 Nov 2026
- Paonta Hp Centre vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 5 Nov 2026
- M/S Multitech Agro INDIA (Opc) PVT LTD vs. The State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 5 Nov 2026
- Gopa Satya Madhava Subbarao vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 5 Nov 2026