ITO, WARD- 20(2), NEW DELHI vs. PUSHPANJALI FINCON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI
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 disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Following established legal principles, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 2,21,57,375/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, considering the assessee's investments made from borrowed funds. The CIT(A) restricted this disallowance to Rs. 1,70,151/-, the amount of dividend income claimed as exempt.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance under Section 14A can exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. The applicability of Rule 8D in computing the disallowance.
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.
- Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT803 citing372 ITR 694 · 2015 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI O.P. KANT & SHRI KULDIP SINGH
PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
Appellant, ITO, Ward 20 (2), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 21.04.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income - tax (Appeals)-7, New Delhi qua the assessment year 2013-14 on the ground that :- “On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.2,21,57,375/- made by the AO u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the AO after recording his satisfaction under the provisions of section 14A, had after recording his satisfaction under the provision of section 14A had correctly computed the disallowance under the Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules.”
Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the issue at hand are : the assessee is into the business of providing consultancy relating to investment, acquiring, holding procuring, purchasing all types of securities. Assessing Officer (AO), by invoking the provisions contained under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (for short ‘the Rules’), proceeded to make disallowance of Rs.2,21,57,375/- on the ground that throughout the year, assessee had own funds under the share capital and reserve & surplus to the tune of Rs.397/- crores whereas made investment during the year under assessment to the tune of Rs.400 crores leading to the conclusion that remaining investment of Rs.2.28 crores has been made from the borrowed funds bearing interest cost and thereby assessed the total income at Rs.2,32,64,940/-.
Assessee carried the matter by way of an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who has restricted the disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A of the Act to Rs.1,70,151/- i.e. to the extent of dividend income claimed as exempt income by partly allowing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.
We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.
Undisputedly, assessee company has received/claimed exempt dividend income to the tune of Rs.1,70,151/- during the year under assessment. It is also not in dispute that the assessee company has made suo moto disallowance of Rs.1,69,625/- u/s 14A of the Act. It is also not in dispute that during the year under assessment, the assessee company has owned share capital and reserve & surplus to the tune of Rs.397 crores as against the investment of Rs.400 crores.
In the light of the aforesaid facts, ld. CIT (A) proceeded to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A to Rs.1,70,151/- by returning following findings :-
“3.4 The facts are similar in the present appeal and I do not see any reason to deviate the principle followed by the CIT(Appeals), whereby disallowance made was deleted. Admittedly, the appellant has disclosed dividend income of Rs.1 ,70,051/- during the year, which is claimed as exempt. However, disallowance computed is far and excess of the exempt income claimed. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 2015/(3) TMI 155 has held that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. The Hon'ble Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of MIs Ganga Kaveri Credit & Holding (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi in is also held that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the amount of dividend income. Respectfully following the decisions cited above and the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) quoted in para 3.3, the disallowance u/s 14A is restricted to RS.1 ,70,1511- i.e. to the extent of dividend income claimed as exempt. The AO is directed to delete the balance disallowance. This ground of appeal is ruled partly in favour of the appellant.”
7. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A) goes to prove that there is no illegality or perversity in the findings returned by the ld. CIT (A) as it is settled principle of law that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT – (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del.) held that, “the disallowance more than exempt income earned by the assessee during the year under assessment cannot be made.” Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on this 20th day of February, 2020.
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 Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026