M/S. WELKNOWN FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 6(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt dividend income earned by the assessee. The disallowance was restricted to the amount of exempt income.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed dividend income as exempt and offered a disallowance under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer, using Rule 8D, calculated a higher disallowance which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can exceed the amount of exempt dividend 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
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara
Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ):- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata dated 11.04.2018, whereby he confirmed the disallowance of Rs.9,32,136/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D.
The assessee in the present case is a Company, which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 29.09.2012 declaring a loss of Rs.15,03,454/-. In the said return, dividend income of Rs.2,83,320/- on investment in shares was claimed to be exempt by the assessee under section 10(34) of the Act and disallowance of Rs.1,62,928/- was offered by the assessee under section 14A on account of expenses incurred for earning the exempt dividend income. The Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Welknown Financial Services Pvt. Limited Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the quantum of disallowance offered by the assessee under section 14A. He invoked Rule 8D and worked out the expenses incurred by the assessee for earning the exempt dividend income at Rs.9,32,136/- and made a disallowance to that extent under section 14A in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 16.02.2015. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The limited contention raised by the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income in the form of dividend actually earned by the assessee during the year under consideration. He has contended that since the exempt income in the form of dividend actually earned by the assessee during the year under consideration was only of Rs.2,88,320/-, the disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed Rs.2,83,320/-. Since this contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is duly supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Limited –vs.- CIT [372 ITR 694] and the ld. D.R. has also not disputed this position, we restrict the disallowance of Rs.9,32,136/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to Rs.2,83,320/- and allow this appeal of the assessee partly.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on February 12, 2019.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Cognizant Technology Solutions India… vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax…Chennai16 May 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal decided that Section 10A deductions are to be computed at the gross total income stage, not total income. It also ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the set-off of losses from 10A/10AA units and allowe...
- Air India Limited, Mumbai vs ACIT Circle 5(1)(1), MumbaiMumbai18 Dec 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had incorrectly applied the pre-amendment provisions of Rule 8D. Post-amendment, disallowance under Section 14A should only consider investments yielding exempt income.
- Vam Group Hi-Tech Engineering Private… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…Cochin26 Sept 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the amount of exempt income. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the exempt income earned.
- S. Vinodkumar Diamonds P.Tld, Mumbai vs DCIT 5(3), MumbaiMumbai3 Aug 2020Partly Allowed
Also relies on Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that losses on forward contracts are allowable as business expenditure. For Section 14A disallowance, it was held that it cannot exceed the exempt income earned.
- DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs M Suresh Jewellery P.Ltd, MumbaiMumbai30 Aug 2019Partly Allowed
Also relies on Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that profits eligible for Section 10A deduction should not be included in the computation of book profit under Section 115JB. It also directed that disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026