DCIT CC - 8 (4), MUMBAI vs. VINA VIREN AHUJA, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. This is a settled legal position affirmed by the Apex Court.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee earned dividend income and argued that the disallowance cannot exceed this exempt income. The CIT(A) accepted this argument and restricted the disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT1,596 citing91 Taxmann.com 154 · 2018 · SC · Read judgment
- PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala170 citing259 Taxmann 314 · 2018 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
DCIT, CC-8(4), Room No. 676, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ...... अपीलाथ( /Appellant Mumbai-400020. बनाम Vs. Smt Vina Viren Ahuja 1, Neelkanth Tirth, Road No. 6, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. PAN: AAFPA4893E ..... )ितवाद+/Respondent अपीलाथ( ,ारा/ Appellant by : Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi )ितवाद+ ,ारा/Respondent by : None सुनवाई क- ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 17/06/2021 घोषणा क- ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : 01/07/2021 आदेश/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 20.06.2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.
The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee apart from the business of export of home furnishings and sale of handicrafts,
आअसं. 4930/मुं/2018 (िन.व.2013-14) (A.Y.2013-14) is engaged in trading of shares. In scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) inter alia made disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act” to the tune of Rs. 2,95,48,700/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 08.03.2016, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) assailing disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act. The assessee earned dividend income of Rs. 32,98,024/- during the period relevant to the AY under appeal. Before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee interalia raised a ground that disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act cannot exceed exempt income earned during the relevant period. To buttress his submission, the assessee relied on various decisions. The CIT(A) following the decision rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT, 91 taxmann.com 154 (SC) restricted the disallowance under section 14A to the extent of dividend income earned i.e. Rs. 32,98,024/-. Against the relief allowed by the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.
Shri Sanjay J. Sethi representing the Department vehemently defended the assessment order and prayed for reversing the findings of CIT(A) on this issue.
Submissions made by ld. Departmental Representative (DR) heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The solitary issued raised in appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal is against restricting disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D to the extent exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant period. It is no more res-integra that disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed tax free exempt income earned during the आअसं. 4930/मुं/2018 (िन.व.2013-14) (A.Y.2013-14)
relevant period. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. State Bank of Patiala reported as 259 Taxman 314 has approved the order of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court wherein it was held that disallowance under section 14A be restricted to amount of exempt income only. Thus, in view of the settled legal position, the impugned order warrants no interference. Ergo, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday, the 1st day of July, 2021. Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) �याियक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई/Mumbai, 2दनांक/Dated: 01/07/2021 SK, PS )ितिल�प अ3े�षत )ितिल�प अ3े�षतCopy of the Order forwarded to : )ितिल�प अ3े�षत )ितिल�प अ3े�षत 1. अपीलाथ(/The Appellant , 2. )ितवाद+/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु4(अ)/ The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयु4 CIT 5. �वभागीय )ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड8 फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy//
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. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026