DCIT CIR 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPAERS (MUMBAI) 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, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from its previous rulings on similar issues for the assessee in earlier assessment years.
What were the facts?
The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting disallowances made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D and also deleting a disallowance of land revenue tax. The assessee argued that these issues were covered by previous tribunal decisions in their own case.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting disallowances made under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D and disallowance of land revenue tax, considering previous tribunal decisions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.2,118 citing313 ITR 340 · 2009 · HC
- HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT408 citing383 ITR 529 · 2016 · HC · Read judgment
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by revenue under section 253 of Income-tax Act (‘Act’) is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- 8, Mumbai [hereinafter referred as ld. CIT(A)] dated 15.02.2018 for Assessment Year 2011-12. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.54,34,825/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D without appreciating the fact that the amount of disallowance u/s 14A of the I. T. Act, 1961 has to be computed as per rule 8D of I.T. rules, 1962 as held in the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.54,34,825/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D and upholding the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee at Rs.8,03,496/- holding that the onus was upon the AO to prove that interest expenditure was incurred for making investments capable of earning exempt 1 Mum 2018-M/s Indian Express Newspaper (Mumbai) P. Ltd.
income when infact the onus of establishing its claim of deduction lies on the Assessee? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.54,34,825/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D by accepting the claim of the assessee that investments were made from own funds without actually verifying the sources of such investments, without appreciating that the assessee had not proved it before the Assessing Officer or in appeal proceedings that investments were actually made from own funds? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,94,648/- being claim of Land revenue Tax against income from House Property without appreciating the fact that no such deductions is allowable as per the provisions of I. T. Act, 1961 in the computation of income from House Property? 5. The appellant prays that for this and other reasons it is submitted that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.
At the outset of hearing, the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that all the grounds of appeal
raised by revenue are covered in favour of assessee and against the revenue by the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year (AY) 2010-11 and 2011-12 . The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that ground no. 1 to 3 relates to disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D are covered by the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2010-11 in dated 22.06.2016. And the ground no.4 which relates to deduction of land revenue while computing the income under the head “Income from House Property” is also covered by the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2012-13 in ITA No. 3664/Mum/2016 dated 31.03.2018. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the copy of decision ITA No. 2536 Mum 2018-M/s Indian Express Newspaper (Mumbai) P. Ltd. of Tribunal in Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 in assessee’s own case as referred above.
3. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue after going through the grounds of appeal and on comparison of grounds of appeal in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2012-13 submits that he strongly relied upon the order of Assessing Officer.
4. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. Ground No.1 to 3 relates to disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. We have noted that while passing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has shown the exempt income of Rs. 1.2 Crore and no suo-moto disallowance. When the assessee was confronted the assessee contended that they have not incurred any expenses to earn the exempt income. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of assessee. The Assessing Officer invoked the provision of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D made disallowance of Rs. 54,34,825/- on account of interest expenditure as well as .5% of average value of investment i.e. Rs. 8,03,496/-. Thus, made a total disallowance of Rs. 62,38,321/-.
Before ld CIT (A) the assessee have shown that Share Capital and Reserve and in far excess than the investment made by the assessee during the relevant financial year as recorded in para 3.1 of his order. 3 Mum 2018-M/s Indian Express Newspaper (Mumbai) P. Ltd. The assessee also relied on the decision of Bombay High Court in HDFC Bank (383 ITR 529 Bom) and Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd (313 ITR 340 Bom) on the ratio of law that if the reserve funds are in far excess of the investment, the assumption is that the investments are made out of own funds and no borrowed funds are utilized. The ld. CIT(A), deleted the interest disallowance of Rs. 54,34,825/- by following the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2010-11 and remaining disallowance of Rs. 8,03,496/- was sustained. We have noted that the ld. CIT(A) by following the decision of Tribunal for AY 2010-11 and deleted the disallowance of interest expenses and sustained the administrative expenses to the extent of .5% of the average value of investment.
No contrary fact or law is brought to our notice to take other view, therefore, respectfully following the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2010-1, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the appeal are dismissed.
Ground No.4 related to deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,94,648/- on account of land revenue. We have noted that similar disallowance was made for Assessment Year 2012-13, however, on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the same was deleted by following the decision of Assessment Year 2010-11. We have further noted that the ld. CIT(A) by following ITA No. 2536 Mum 2018-M/s Indian Express Newspaper (Mumbai) P. Ltd. the decision of Assessment Year 2012-13 deleted the disallowance by passing the following order:
2. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the CIT(A) in AY 2010-11 has deleted the disallowance on the grounds that the Municipal tax are liable for deduction. The CIT(A) in this year following the order of his predecessor in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 allowed the claim by observing Para 5.2.1 as under: -
“5.2.1 This ground pertains to disallowance of Rs. 194,548/- being the Land Revenue Tax paid by the appellant. This issue has also come up in appeal before my learned predecessor in appellants own case for assessment year 2010-11. At para 5.3.2, CIT(A) held that undisputedly. the said payments are in the nature of taxes paid and akin to municipal taxes and therefore, an allowable deduction. I do not find any reason to depart from the decision of my learned predecessor and therefore the disallowance of Rs 1,94,648/-on this account is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.”
3. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A). Hence, this issue of Revenue’s appeal is also dismissed.
7. Considering the decision of Tribunal on identical facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by ld. CIT(A).
In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23/04/2019.
Sd/- Sd/- G.S. PANNU PAWAN SINGH VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date: 23.04.2019 SK 5 Mum 2018-M/s Indian Express Newspaper (Mumbai) P. Ltd. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. The concerned CIT(A) 4. The concerned CIT 5. DR “C” Bench, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File
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 →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026