DCIT - 10(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. HINDUJA VENTURES 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 held that disallowances made under Section 14A cannot be added to arrive at book profit for the purposes of Section 115JB. This decision was based on the jurisdictional Bombay High Court's ruling.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D and added this to the book profit under Section 115JB. The CIT(A) deleted the addition made under Section 115JB, partly sustaining the disallowance under Section 14A.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowances made under Section 14A can be added to book profits computed under Section 115JB.
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, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:
The above titled two appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 27.02.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14.
The only issue raised by the revenue in the various grounds of appeals in both the years is against non confirmation of disallowance as made by the AO under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D to book profit as under section 115JB of the Act, 1961.
2 & 2993/M/2018 M/s. Hinduja Ventures Ltd. 3. The facts in brief are that the AO in the assessment proceedings calculated the disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D at Rs.1,38,71,122/- in A.Y. 2012-13 and Rs.94,77,094/- in A.Y. 2013-14 and added the same while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act.
In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) partly sustained the addition under section 14A read with rule 8D while fully deleted the addition made under section 115JB of the Act by observing and holding as under: “The submission and arguments made by the AR and case laws relied upon has been duly considered ant the issue being directly covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Bengal Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd in its order dated 05..01.2018 where in the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has dismissed the appeal of the department and held that "So far as Question (b) is concerned, the impugned order of the Tribunal foliowed its decision in M/s. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. v/s. DCIT in to held that an amount disallowed under Section 14A of the Act cannot be added to arrive at book profit for purposes of Section 115JB of the Act. The Revenue's Appeal against the order of the Tribunal in M/s. Essar Teleholdings (supra) was dismissed by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.438 of 2012 rendered on 7th August, 2014. In view of the above, question (b) does not raise any substantial question of law."
In view of the above discussed ratio, as the issue is directly covered by the above referred judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, this ground of the appellant is allowed and the AO is directed to compute the Book Profit u/s. 115JB without considering the disallowance u/s. 14A.
Now the revenue has challenged the deletion of disallowance made u/s 14A rule 8D to the book profits in these appeals by the ld CIT(A). After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that the case of the assessee is covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court which has been followed by the Ld. CIT(A) and also 3 & 2993/M/2018 M/s. Hinduja Ventures Ltd. by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 82 taxman.com 415 (Del. Trib. –SB) wherein it has been held that computation under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB sub section (2) has to be made without resorting to computation as contemplated under section 14A read with rule 8D. Accordingly, we dismiss both the appeals of the Revenue by upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13.05.2019.
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 →- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026