ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, MADURAI vs. TVS SRICHAKRA LIMITED, MADURAI
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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. This was based on High Court precedents.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order restricting disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income. The assessee had declared a loss, but the Assessing Officer made additions, including a significant disallowance under Section 14A.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D should be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee.
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.
- Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT803 citing372 ITR 694 · 2015 · HC · Read judgment
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman
O R D E R
PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Madurai dated 28.03.2018 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14. The Revenue has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance under section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 30.11.2013 declaring a loss of ₹.2,81,76,297/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny. After considering the details furnished by the assessee against statutory notices, the Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 143(3) of the Act determining the assessed total income at ₹. 12,01,03,241/- after making various disallowance/addition. On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee and facts of the case, the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the restriction of the disallowance under section 14A of the Act to the extent the assessee earned the exempt income.
We have heard both the parties, peruse the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, the assessee has received dividend income of ₹.25,00,000/- during the year and claimed it as exempt, whereas, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of ₹.1,48,48,091/- under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. By following the decision in the case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT in TCA No. 520 of 2016 dated 23.12.2016, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance under section 14A of the Act to the extent of exempted income earned by the assessee. We also find that in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue stands dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 25th July, 2019 at 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. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026