THE INDIA CEMENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1) CHENNAI, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should be computed with reference to only those investments that yielded exempt income, and directed the AO to re-compute the disallowance as per the amended Rule 8D. Regarding interest-free advances to subsidiaries, the Tribunal noted the assessee's argument of commercial expediency but did not provide a final decision in the provided text.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed profit from the sale of Mutual Funds as exempt income. The AO disallowed expenses related to this exempt income under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee also claimed interest expenses on borrowings, but the AO disallowed a portion of it, considering interest-free advances given to subsidiaries.
What were the issues?
Whether expenses related to exempt income are to be disallowed under Section 14A, and whether interest on borrowings for interest-free advances to subsidiaries is deductible.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 14A,Section 115JB,Section 36(1)(iii),Section 68,Section 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(15)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.882 citing58 ITR (Trib) 313 · 2017 · ITAT
- CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.577 citing306 ITR 392 · 2008 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.501 citing102 Taxmann.com 52 · 2019 · SC
- Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT429 citing228 ITR 253 · 1997 · SC
- Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT213 citing19 Taxmann.com 28 · 2012
- Union of India v. Exide Industries146 citing425 ITR 1 · 2020 · SC
- CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd.118 citing305 ITR 409 · 2008 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd.104 citing42 Taxmann.com 551 · 2014 · HC
- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gujarat Alkalies Chemicals Limited49 citing395 ITR 247 · 2017 · HC
- Eveready Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT19 citing17 Taxmann.com 254 · 2012
- 1. Serum Institute of India (P) Ltd. v. Union of India18 citing157 Taxmann.com 107 · 2023 · HC
- CIT v. Ilpea Paramount Pvt. Ltd.11 citing192 Taxmann 65 · 2010 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation8 citing45 DTR 117 · 2010 · HC
- M/s. Brakes India Ltd. v. JCIT7 citing363 ITR 13 · HC
- Eastern Power Distribution Co. of AP Ltd. v. ACIT4 citing139 TTJ 94 · 2011 · ITAT
ITA No.2174/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18) M/s. The India Cements Ltd.
Ground No. 1 of the appeal is general in nature which doesn't require any adjudication and is therefore dismissed.
Ground No.2 raised by the assessee relates to the disallowance of ₹1,07,44,451/- made by the AO u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (herein after the Act) in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962 (herein after the Rules). Briefly stated, the AO had observed from the balance-sheet that the assessee held substantial investments which were capable of yielding tax-free income and therefore, according to him, the expenditure incurred in relation to earning such exempt income was to be disallowed under Section 14A of the Act. The AO inter alia also observed that, the assessee didn't derive any dividend income from these investments, but had claimed profit to the extent of ₹1,07,44,451/- earned from sale of Mutual Funds as exempt u/s.10(39) of the Act. The AO accordingly show caused the assessee to explain as to why expenditure incurred for earning such exempt income should not be disallowed, in accordance with Rule 8D. In response, the assessee explained that, the investments which yielded ex
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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 →- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026