R.S.ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC- 4(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to compute disallowance under Section 14A r/w Rule 8D(2)(iii) by considering only investments that yielded exempt income. The Revenue's appeal was also dismissed due to low tax effect.
What were the facts?
The assessee earned substantial dividend income but did not disallow any expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed an amount under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The CIT(A) directed the AO to compute disallowance considering only investments yielding exempt income.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A r/w Rule 8D should be computed considering all investments or only those yielding exempt income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.789 citing82 Taxmann.com 415 · 2017 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEYAND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN
Date of Hearing – 12.07.2019 Date of Order – 19.07.2019 2 R.S. Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.
The aforesaid cross appeals arise out of order dated 13th March 2018, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 52, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2014–15.
The only common issue arising in the present cross appeals relate to disallowance made under section 14A r/w rule 8D.
Brief facts are, in the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that during the year under consideration, the assessee had earned dividend income of ` 8,24,79,471, whereas, it has not disallowed any expenditure for earning such income, called upon the assessee to provide a working of disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D. In response, it was submitted by the assessee that since it has not incurred any expenditure directly or indirectly for earning dividend income, no disallowance under section 14A of the Act can be made. The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept the explanation of the assessee and proceeded to compute disallowance by applying rule 8D and ultimately disallowed an amount of ` 21,96,738, under rule 8D(2)(iii). The assessee challenged the aforesaid disallowance before the first appellate authority.
3 R.S. Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the submissions of the assessee and following various judicial precedents including the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench, in CIT v/s Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Del.) directed the Assessing Officer to compute disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii)by considering only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year.
At the outset, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee has instructed him not to contest the grounds raised in its appeal. Whereas, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer.
We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. After carefully going through the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), we are of the view that the direction issued by him to the Assessing Officer is in full conformity with the ratio laid down in the judicial precedents cited by him, including the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench, in Vireet Investment (supra). Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to consider only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year for computing disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D(2)(iii). It is further noticed, the 4 R.S. Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd.
disallowance disputed by the Revenue in its appeal amounts to ` 21,96,738. Therefore, the tax effect on such disallowance works out to less than ` 20 lakh. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal of the Revenue even otherwise would not be maintainable due to low tax effect.
In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19.07.2019
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 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
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026