DCIT CEN CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. REKHA JHUNJHUNWALA, 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 14A disallowance, following the Bombay High Court's decision in 'All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd.' and the Tribunal's own prior order in the assessee's case. The Tribunal also noted that the tax effect for one assessment year was below the threshold for appeals.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, finding that interest-free funds were available against investments and that the disallowance was computed inconsistently with prior years. The Tribunal noted that no incriminating material was found during the search related to this disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance under Section 14A, particularly when the Revenue had filed an SLP against a similar High Court decision.
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.
- CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd.1,823 citing374 ITR 645 · 2015 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”, BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM
आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M):
These are the appeals filed by Revenue against the order of CIT(A)- 49, Mumbai dated 10/03/2016 for A.Y.2006-07 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153A of the IT Act, 1961 2. The common ground taken by the Revenue in both the assessment years is as under:- 1). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A), was justified in directing the AO to delete the disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.72,44,504/- made, relying on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of All Cargo Logistics Ltd(374 ITR 645). without appreciating the fact that the decision of the High Court has not been accepted by the department and SLP has been filed and the same is pending.
3823/Mum/2016 Smt. Rekha Jhunjhunwala 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused.
Facts in brief are that assessee is earning income from business house property and capital gains. During the course of assessment, AO made disallowance u/s.14A in the assessment order framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act.
By the impugned order, CIT(A) deleted the addition after observing that interest free funds was available against the investment in shares and securities. Precise observation of CIT(A) was as under:-
6.2.4 I find that the appellant has filed return u/s 153A, following the search, including the said income of Rs,261 ,278/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A to the total income declared u/s 139 on 31.10.2006 at Rs. 25,21, 12.646/-. I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has correctly worked out the disallowance u/s 14A on the same lines as computed by the A.O for A.Y 2004-05 & 2005-06 vide order dated 07.10.201 1 while giving effect to the order of the ITAT dated 10.12.2010, by which this issue was set aside to the file of the A.O for A,Yrs.2004-05 to 2006-07, on the grounds of consistency. I find no justification for the A.O to compute the disallowance u/s 14A at Rs.75,05,785/-ignoring the basis on which disallowance u/s 14A had been worked out for A.Y 2004-05 & 2005-06 vide order dated 07.10.2011 in the case of the appellant, under similar facts and circumstances and ignoring the fact that interest free funds of Rs.225.95 crores was available against the investment in shares and securities to the extent of Rs.184.75 crores. 6.3 In view of the above discussion, the addition of Rs.72,44,507/- made to the total income filed in response to notice u/s 153A at Rs.25,25,11,488/- is found to be without any justification and the same is deleted.
At the outset, learned AR placed on record the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y.2008-09 wherein similar addition has 3823/Mum/2016 Smt. Rekha Jhunjhunwala been deleted by the CIT(A) was confirmed by the Tribunal after having following observation. “6. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. We find that our indulgence in the present case has been sought to adjudicate as to whether the CIT(A) was right in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.68,07,509/- made by the A.O under Sec. 14A by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. (2015) 374 ITR 645 (Bom), or not. We find that it remains as a matter of a conceded fact that during the course of the search and seizure action conducted on the assessee on 29.08.2011, no material whatsoever was found as regards the disallowance under Sec.l4A. We find that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. (2015) 374 ITR 645 (Bom) had upheld the order of the special bench of the Tribunal, wherein it was observed that in the absence of incriminating material seized during the course of the search and seizure proceedings conducted under Sec. 132 of the Act, no addition in respect of an unabated assessment could be made. We are of the considered view that as the CIT(A) in the present case going by the rule of judicial discipline had followed the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. (supra), therefore, no infirmity emerges from his order. We are of I the considered view that though the revenue had not accepted the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and had filed a SLP against the same, however, as the order of the Hon'ble High Court i had not been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, the same holds the ground as on date. We thus finding ourselves to be in agreement with the view taken by the CIT(A) and finding no reason to dislodge the same, therefore, uphold his order.
The appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 7. As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are exactly same, wherein in the search assessment addition made u/s.14A was deleted by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal after relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd., confirmed the action of CIT(A) for such deletion. Respectfully
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 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
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026