DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TARIFF ADVISORY COMMITTEE GENERAL INSURANCE, 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 order, stating that Section 14A can only be invoked if the assessee claims expenditure against exempt income. Since the assessee had not claimed any exemption, the disallowance was unjustified.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs. 8.83 crores under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee, a regulatory authority for insurance, had declared a loss and claimed exemption for certain income. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, holding that no exemption was claimed.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A is justified when the assessee has not claimed any income as exempt.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd.378 citing319 ITR 204 · 2009 · HC
- CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries3 citing45 Taxmann 116 · 2014 · HC
Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य, राजे�� सद�य राजे�� राजे�� केकेकेके अनुसार राजे�� अनुसार अनुसार -PER RAJENDRA, AM- अनुसार Challenging the order,dated 21/08/2015 of CIT(A)-6, Mumbai,the Assessing Officer(AO) has filed the present appeal.Assessee,a Regulatory Authority for Insurance,filed its return of income,on 30/09/2011,declaring Loss at Rs.18.96 crores.The AO completed assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act,on 28/02/2014,determining its income at Rs.3.04 crores. 2.Solitary Ground of appeal is about deleting the disallowance made,u/s. 14A r.w.Rule 8D 2(i)of the Income tax Rules,1962 (Rules).During the assessment proceedings,the AO found that the assessee had declared loss of Rs.18.96 crores, that it had filed the Return on the basis of provisional income and expenditure account,that the accounts of the assessee were audited by the office of the Indian Audit and Accountant General, that a revised return was filed declaring Loss of Rs.5.879 crores, that the assessee had claimed exemption of Rs.9.13 crores u/s. 10(23BBE)of the Act.As per the AO,the entire business income of the assessee was exempt.He directed the assessee to explain as to why disallowance should not be made as per the provisions of section 14A.After considering submission of the assessee,the AO made a disallowance of Rs.8.83 crores invoking provisions of section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Rules. 3.Aggrieved by the order of the AO,the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA)and made submissions.After considering available material,he held
5342/M/15-M/s. Tariff Committee General Insuarnce that the assessee had not claimed any income as exempt from the business, that in absence of the exemption claimed there was no justification for any disallowance. He referred to the case of Corrtech Energy Pvt.Ltd(45taxmann 116) Lakhani Markeitng Inc.(49 taxmann 257) and Winsome Textile Industries (319ITR204) and held that where the assessee did not make any claim for exemption,section 14A would have no application,that from the income and expen - diture account,it was clear that the assessee had offered the fee collected from the insurers (Rs.9.13crores)as its income,that it had not claimed any exemption,while computing the income.He directed the AO to delete the disallowance. 4.During the course of hearing before us,the Departmental Representative (DR) stated that the issue could be decided on merits.As stated earlier, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We find that the FAA has given the categorical finding of fact that assessee had not claimed any exemption.As per the settled law,provisions of section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the Rules can be invoked only if an assessee claims expenditure against exempt income. In other words,if no expenditure is claimed in respect of exempt income no disallowance can be made u/s. 14A.Considering the facts of the case,we are of the opinion that order of the FAA does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity. Therefore, confirming the same, we decide the effective Ground of appeal against the AO.
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 →- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026