AHMEDNAGAR SHAHAR SAHAKARI BANK LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the manner of computation of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was unclear in both the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a cooperative bank, filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer made additions on account of Broken Period Interest and under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the addition for Broken Period Interest but failed to address one part of the Section 14A disallowance.
What were the issues?
The key issue was the correct method for calculating the disallowance under Section 14A, specifically concerning the average value of investments and the applicability of amended rules.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
ORDER
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Pune [‘CIT(A)’ for short] dated 24.10.2017 for the assessment year 2013-14.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a cooperative bank engaged in banking business. The return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed on 02.10.2013 Rs.7,18,86,595/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 30.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.10,83,41,170/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.47,96,280/- on account of Broken Period Interest. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.3,16,20,370/- under the provisions of section 14A of the Act, with which, we are concerned. 3. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of Broken Period Interest of Rs.47,96,280/-. The ld. CIT(A) also directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’), however, failed to deal with the disallowance made under clause (iii) of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. 4. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us.
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 →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026