DCIT, CC 1 (4), MUMBAI vs. D. B.REALTY LIMITED, MUMBAU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal agreed that disallowance under Section 14A should only be on investments yielding exempt income and that no disallowance can be made under Section 115JB. However, the AO was directed to factually verify the correctness of the assessee's computation of disallowance.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed expenses under Section 14A r.w.r. 8D on investments made by the assessee, including those that did not yield exempt income. The assessee argued that disallowance should only be on investments yielding exempt income and that no disallowance should be made for book profit computation under Section 115JB.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A r.w.r. 8D should be made on all investments or only those yielding exempt income, and whether such disallowance is applicable for book profit computation 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(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.
- ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.882 citing165 ITD 27 · 2017 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JM) & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM)
O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM Captioned appeal by the revenue arises out of order dated 12.12.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai for the assessment year 2015-16.
The dispute in the present appeal is confined to deletion of disallowance made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act,1961 r.w.r. 8D, both, under the normal provisions as well as while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act.
Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident company and is engaged in the business of real estate and infrastructure development. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 2 Assessment Year: 2015-16 13.09.2015 declaring loss of Rs. 31,63,39,334/-. In course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer (AO) noticed that the assessee has made investment worth Rs. 1,70,97,98,720/- in unquoted preference shares. Being of the view that income from such shares would be exempt under the act, the AO called upon the assessee to explain why disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D should not be made. In its reply to the show cause notice, the assessee submitted that no dividend income was received on the investment made in shares. However, the assessee submitted that it has received exempt income by way of share in the profit of a partnership firm amounting to Rs. 2,26,58,326/-. The assessee submitted, since, it had surplus interest free funds, disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) cannot be made. The assessee also made without prejudice submission that disallowance, if any, can be made only under rule 8D(2)(iii) and the assessee computed such disallowance at Rs. 79,37,164/-. The AO, however, did not accept the claim of the assessee and proceeded to compute disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) at Rs. 36,67,42,096/-. Further, the AO also made identical disallowance while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act.
Assessee contested the aforesaid disallowance before learned Commissioner (Appeals). After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and materials on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) directed the AO to compute the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) and (iii) only on those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year. After verifying the computation furnished by the assessee on such disallowance, learned Commissioner (Appeals) ultimately directed the AO to 3 Assessment Year: 2015-16 restrict the disallowance to Rs.55,802/-. Further, learned Commissioner (Appeals) also held that no disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D can be made while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. Being aggrieved, revenue is before us.
5. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Undisputedly, the AO has computed disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D by considering all the investments made by the assessee including those investments on which the assessee did not receive any exempt income during the year. Whereas, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has directed the AO to compute disallowance by considering only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year under consideration. In principle, we agree with the aforesaid direction of learned Commissioner (Appeals), as, it is in accordance with the ratio laid down by the ITAT Delhi Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. 165 ITD 27. Further, we are in agreement with the view expressed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) that while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act, no disallowance can be made by importing the provisions of section 14A r.w.r. 8D. This is in view of the ratio laid down by the ITAT Delhi Special Bench, ACIT vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. (supra). However, as has been held by the Special Bench of the ITAT in the aforesaid decision, the AO has power to make disallowance under Explanation-1(f). Of course, that will be possible only when the AO can demonstrate that the expenditure is directly relatable to the exempt income earned. In our view, before accepting the disallowance computed by the assessee, factual verification is required. Therefore, we direct the AO to 4 Assessment Year: 2015-16 factually verify the correctness of disallowance computed by the assessee by considering only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year and in case it is found to be correct, the disallowance has to be restricted to that amount. Accordingly, we set aside the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issue to the AO.
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 →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026