DCIT - 14 (3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SUNDARAM MULTIPAP LTD., 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 dismissed the revenue's appeal, noting that the tax effect was below the CBDT's monetary limit. Additionally, it was held that no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted as the assessee earned no exempt income.
What were the facts?
The revenue appealed against an order that deleted a disallowance made under Section 14A. The tax effect of the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal is maintainable due to low tax effect as per CBDT circulars, and whether disallowance under Section 14A is applicable when no exempt income is earned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
1. 1. This appeal by revenue under section 253 of Income Tax Act is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, [CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 25.09.2018 for Assessment Year 2015-16.
2. At the outset of hearing, the ld. Authorized representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is only Rs. 28,37,362/-, which is below the monetary limit of Rs.50,00,000/- prescribed by CBDT in its Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that admittedly the tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. Therefore, the present appeal is squarely covered by the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August 2019 and is liable to be dismissed. The ld. AR for the assessee also Mum 2018-M/s Sundaram Multipap Limited. filed working of tax effect of Rs. 28,37,362/- , copy of which was supplied to ld DR for the revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that tax effect of Rs. 28,37,362/- is otherwise mentioned in para-10 of Form 36 (Appeal Form).
3. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue after going through the working of the tax fairly agreed that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than the monetary limit of tax effect fixed by CBDT in a recent circular.
4. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the order of the lower authorities. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order made disallowance under section 14A of Rs. 91,82,400/-. On appeal before ld CIT(A) the assessee stated that no exempt income was earned during the year thus, no disallowances under section14A is warranted. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee that no exempt income was earned by assessee during the relevant period, thus, no disallowance under section 14A is attracted and deleted the entire disallowance.
5. Considering the submissions of both the ld. representatives of the parties, we find that tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- fixed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, therefore, the appeal of revenue is dismissed being not maintainable. Even on merit, we find that when no exempt income was ITA No. 7201 Mum 2018-M/s Sundaram Multipap Limited. earned by assessee, no disallowance under section 14A for the year under consideration is warranted.
In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed due to tax effect as well as on merit.
In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
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 →- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026