M.S GAURI AVINASH BHOSALE,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) should be computed by considering only those investments that yielded exempt income during the year. The AO was directed to recompute the disallowance accordingly.
What were the facts?
The assessee earned exempt income and did not disallow any expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 5,84,461/- under rule 8D(2)(iii) for administrative expenditure. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was unsuccessful.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D should consider only investments yielding exempt income during the relevant assessment year.
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 “G”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI G. S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE
O R D E R PER BENCH This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 30.09.2020 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai for the assessment year 2015-16.
The dispute in the present appeal is confined to disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with rule 8D.
Briefly the facts are, the assessee is an individual. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed his return of income on 28.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 1,34,61,140/-. In course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer (AO) noticed that during the year under 2 Assessment Year: 2015-16 consideration, the assessee had earned exempt income of Rs. 5,26,509/-. Since, the assessee had not disallowed any expenditure attributable to earning of exempt income, the AO called upon the assessee to explain why such expenses should not be disallowed as per rule 8D. In reply, assessee objected to the proposed disallowance by stating that no expenditure has been incurred for earning the exempt income by way of dividend and Provident Fund (PF) interest. The AO however, was not convinced with the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to disallow an amount of Rs. 5,84,461/- under rule 8D(2)(iii) towards administrative expenditure. Though, the assessee contested the aforesaid disallowance before learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, she was unsuccessful.
We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. The limited submissions made by learned counsel for the assessee before us is, disallowance under rule 8D should be computed by considering only those investments that yielded exempt income during the year. We find substantial merit in the aforesaid submission of the assessee. In case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB), the learned Special Bench of the Tribunal has held that while computing disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii), only those investments which yielded exempt income during the year under consideration can be included in the average value of investment. In view of the ratio laid down by the learned Special Bench, as aforesaid, we direct the AO to compute the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) by considering only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year.
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 Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026