R. JEGATHAMBAL,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, MADURAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's method of calculating the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was not clear from the assessment order. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerned a disallowance of Rs. 11,90,082/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee argued that the disallowance should be restricted to the exempt income, which was only Rs. 46,950/- in dividend income.
What were the issues?
The key issue was the correct computation of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, particularly concerning exempt income from partnership firms and dividends. The tribunal also examined the clarity of the Assessing Officer's calculation method.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ (SMC
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
आदेश / O R D E R
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai in appeal No.I.T.A. No.159/18-19 dated 13.08.2019 for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
2 -: 2. Mr. S. Shanmugavel, Chartered Accountant represented on behalf of the Assessee and Ms. R. Anitha, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue.
It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that the assessee is an individual who is also having income from partnership firms. It was a submission that in the course of assessment, it was noticed that the assessee was having exempt income and consequently the Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions of Section 14A r.w.Rule-8D and had disallowed an amount of Rs.11,90,082/- as expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. It was a submission that the dividend income earned by the assessee was only Rs.46,950/-. It was a submission that if at all, the disallowance u/s.14A r.w.Rule 8D must be restricted to the exempt income.
In reply, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee is deriving share of income from partnership firms. It was a submission that even the same has 3 -: to be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance u/s.14A r.w.Rule-8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For this purpose, the learned Departmental Representative placed before me a copy of the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in the case of Dharmasingh M. Popat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2010] 127 TTJ 61 (Mumbai), as also the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Pune Bench in the case of Paras Bhomraj Oswal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kohlapur reported in [2017] 88 taxmann.com 41 (Pune – Trib.).
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
Admittedly, the disallowance u/s.14A, r.w.Rule-8D is in respect of the expenditure incurred in respect of such incomes which are not includable in the total income of the assessee. The share of income from the partnership firm as also the dividend income, admittedly, is not includable in the total income of the assessee, as the same is exempt u/s.10 of the 4 -: Income Tax Act, 1961. A perusal of the assessment order does not show as to how the Assessing Officer has determined the disallowance u/s.14A r.w.Rule-8D. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issue of the disallowance u/s.14A r.w.Rule-8D is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication and for re-computing after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 18th March, 2020 in Chennai.
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 Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026