PUKHRAJ SHREEMALJI JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(2)(5), MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority had considered the facts correctly and saw no reason to deviate from their decision. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was confirmed.
What were the facts?
The assessee's income was determined at Rs. 10.70 Lacs after additions and disallowances, significantly higher than the returned income. The disallowance under Section 14A was confirmed, and an addition under Section 2(22)(e) for deemed dividend was also sustained.
What were the issues?
The key issues were the correctness of the disallowance under Section 14A and the addition made under Section 2(22)(e) for deemed dividend.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2012-13 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)-51/IT/66/19(2)(5)/2017-18 dated 24/08/2018 qua confirmation of certain disallowances.
2 Shri Pukhraj Shreemalji Jain Assessment Year :2012-13
When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared for assessee and therefore, the matter was proceeded with ex-parte qua the assessee on the basis of material on record and after hearing learned departmental representative.
1 Facts in brief are that the assessee being resident individual was assessed for year under consideration u/s 143(3) on 20/03/2105 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.10.70 Lacs after certain additions / disallowances as against returned income of Rs.5.06 Lacs filed by the assessee on 18/09/2012. 3.2 The assessee was saddled with disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.1.64 Lacs, computed @0.5% of investments held by the assessee. Another addition of Rs.4 Lacs was made invoking the provisions of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e), being unsecured loan received by assessee from an entity namely Allied Feromet Pvt. Ltd., an entity in which the assessee held substantial shareholding of more than 10%.
Upon further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) directed for exclusion of investments made by the assessee in property, while computing disallowance u/s 14A. The Ld. AO was also directed to consider only exempt income yielding investments while computing the said disallowance. However, the addition made u/s 2(22)(e) were sustained in view of the fact that lending was not found to be substantial part of lender entity and the other conditions of Sec. 2(22)(e) were fulfilled. Aggrieved, the assessee is under further appeal before us.
Upon due consideration, we find that the factual matrix has duly been considered in right perspective by Ld. first appellate authority.
3 Shri Pukhraj Shreemalji Jain Assessment Year :2012-13 There is no material on record which would warrant us to deviate from the stand of Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we confirm the same.
The appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03rd December, 2019. (C.N. Prasad) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) "ाियक सद" / Judicial Member लेखा सद" / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 03/12/2019 Sr.PS, Jaisy Varghese
आदेशकी"ितिलिपअ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant
""थ"/ The Respondent 2. आयकरआयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकरआयु"/ CIT– concerned 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड"फाईल / Guard File 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.
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 →- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- 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