ESSVEE INVESTMENT ADVISORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that shares held as stock-in-trade should not be excluded from average investment for disallowance computation. However, the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the amount of exempt income received.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a company dealing in securities, received dividend income. The Assessing Officer (AO) made a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D amounting to Rs. 67,38,678/-.
What were the issues?
Whether shares held as stock-in-trade should be excluded for disallowance under Section 14A, and whether the disallowance should be restricted to the exempt income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E”, BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM
आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M):
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- 6, Mumbai dated 22/03/2018 for A.Y.2008-09 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the IT Act. 2. Only grievance of assessee relates to disallowance made u/s.14A r.w.Rule 8D amounting to Rs.67,38,678/-. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. 4. Facts in brief are that assessee is dealing in securities and financial activities. During the year under consideration, assessee got dividend M/s. Essvee Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd., income of Rs.23,91,501/-. However, AO made disallowance of Rs.67,38,678/- under Rules 8D.
It was contention of learned AR that the shares held by assessee as stock in trade is to be excluded. As an alternate, it was argued that disallowance u/s.14A should be restricted to the amount of exempt income received during the year.
We have considered rival contentions and do not find any merit in the contention of learned AR with regard to excluding the shares held as stock in trade while computing average investment on which disallowance is warranted in view of the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxoop Investment, dated 12/02/2018,. However, with regard to assessee’s contention to restrict the disallowance to the extent of dividend income, we are inclined to agree, in view of the decision in the case of Delhi High Court in case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd., dated 25/02/2015. Respectfully following the proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s.14A to the extent of exempt income received during the year under consideration. We direct accordingly.
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 New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026