M/S KHODAY INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, it was decided that no additional disallowance is permissible beyond the exempt income.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed exempt income of Rs. 28,000 and suo motu disallowed Rs. 13,527 under Section 14A. The AO initially disallowed Rs. 49,50,262, which was later enhanced to Rs. 2,17,23,007 via a rectification order. The CIT(A) upheld the enhanced disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A can exceed the amount of 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.
- CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd.579 citing372 ITR 97 · 2014 · HC
- CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd.421 citing95 Taxmann.com 250 · 2018 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENGALURU BENCHES : “A”, BENGALURU
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM & SMT.BEENA PILLAI, JM
BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM & SMT.BEENA PILLAI, JM & 2489(Bang)/2017 (Assessment years : 2013-14) M/s Khoday India Limited. Brewery House, 7th Mile, Kanakpura Road, Bangalore-560 062 Pan No.AAACK6734C Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Circle-4(1)(1), BMTC Building, 6thFloor, Koramanagala, Bangalore Respondent Appellant by : Shri V. Sridhar, CA Revenue by : Shri B.R.Ramesh, JCIT Date of hearing : 24-02-2020 Date of pronouncement : 26-02-2020 O R D E R
PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA: AM
The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee in respect of assessment years 2013-14 in question against the respective orders passed by the CIT(A)-4, Bengaluru arising from the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) and 154 of the IT Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) both dated 30-08-2017.
The solitary issue involved in both the appeals relates to disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act. & 2489(B)/2017 2 3. Briefly stated, the assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 in question which was subjected to scrutiny assessment and the assessment order was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act by an order dated 20-01-2016. While framing the assessment u/s 143(3), the AO carried out a disallowance of Rs.49,50,262/- u/s 14A of the Act. The assessee preferred an appeal against the aforesaid disallowance before the CIT(A). During the pendency of appeal, the AO passed another order u/s 154 of the Act on 28-06-2017 whereby the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act was revised and enhanced from Rs.49,50,262/- to Rs.2,17,23,007/-. The CIT(A) upheld the enhanced disallowance of Rs.2,17,23,007/-in the first appeal. In this backdrop, the captioned appeals are presented before the Tribunal ie. one against the original disallowance and the other against the revised/ enhanced disallowance.
We have heard rival submissions on the issue. As pointed out on behalf of the assessee, the assessee has claimed exempt income during the year to the extent of Rs.28,000/- As against the aforesaid exempt income, assessee has suo motu disallowed amount of Rs. 13,527/- under sec.14A of the Act. The disallowance under S. 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. Therefore, no disallowance is permissible in excess of Rs.28,000/- in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Corrtech Energy P. Ltd. 372 ITR 97 (Guj.). In another judgment in the case of CIT vs. Vision Finstock Ltd. Tax Appeal No. 486 of 2017 dated 31.07.2017 the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has once again expressed the similar view and held that disallowance of expenditure in terms of Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income itself. It is noticed that SLP(Civil) [Diary No. 13152/2018] filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Vision Finstock Ltd. (supra) has been dismissed on merits by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.05.2018. The reference is also made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. & 2489(B)/2017 3 (2018) 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC). Thus, in the light of judicial precedents noted above, no additional disallowance is called for under sec.14A of the Act in excess of exempt income. The disallowance is thus required to be restricted to the extent of exempt income.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26-02-2020
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that goodwill created as a result of amalgamation is a depreciable asset, as it came into existence due to the amalgamation itself, not a transfer of an existing asset. The Tribunal also noted that amen...
- DCIT, Mumbai vs Hubtown Limited, MumbaiMumbai10 Dec 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that in an abated assessment year, the assessee is entitled to file a revised return under Section 153A and make fresh claims, as it replaces the original return. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s view that d...
- DCIT, Range-6, Lucknow vs M/S. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd…Lucknow16 May 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the Explanation to Section 14A, inserted by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective and not retrospective. Consequently, it does not apply to the assessment years in question. The Tribunal also resto...
- Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax 6(1)(2)… vs Incred Holdings Limited (Formerly Known As…Mumbai17 Oct 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible if no exempt income is earned, as per various High Court judgments. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of ESOP expenses additions, following Hig...
- ACIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs Maharashtra State Power Generation Company…Mumbai20 Sept 2021Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance for non-deduction of TDS as the deductee had paid the tax. It also upheld the deletion of Section 14A disallowance as no exempt income was received. The Tribunal ...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026