DCIT CIR 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SMITA CONDUCTORS LTD, 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 noted that the assessee had sufficient free funds and reserves, and had made investments. Following a previous decision for the same assessee, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance made by the AO under Section 14A. The assessee had earned dividend income and profit from partnership, claiming them as exempt.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance made by the AO under Section 14A for expenses incurred in relation to exempt income was justified, considering the assessee's financial position.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G”, 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 Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-8, Mumbai dated 29/02/2016 for A.Y.2012-13 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the IT Act.
The only grievance of Revenue relates to deleting disallowance made by AO u/s.14A of the IT Act.
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 exactly similar issue was decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s favour. The precise observation of the Tribunal was as under:-
M/s. Smita Conductors Ltd., 4. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and gone through the orders of authorities below. We have noticed that the assessee earned dividend income of Rs.2,03,22,503/- and profit from partnership of Rs. 14,186/-which were claimed exempted by the assessee. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the details of the expenses incurred for earning exempt income. The assessee furnished its explanation along with the details of exempt income, profit and loss account and the balance sheet. The AO has not discussed in his order about the statement of account and the details of expenses incurred by the assessee, which was furnished before him during the assessment proceedings. The AO has not rejected the accounts filed by assessee. The AO invoked the provision of rule 8D for making disallowance u/s 14A. The AO disallowed Rs. 26,82,784/- under rule 8D(ii) and Rs. 6,01,991/-under rule 8D(iii). We have seen that assessee was having sufficient interest on the free fund available. The assessee had a reserve and surplus fund of Rs. 28,42,58,814/- as on 31st March 2008. The assessee made the investment of Rs. 17,01,81,310/ - in mutual funds during the year under consideration. Thus, keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate that a lump sum disallowance of Rs. 25,000/-under section 14A would meet the end of Justice. Hence the AO is directed to restrict the disallowance under section 14 A to Rs. 25,000/- . In the result this ground of appeal is partly allowed.
The facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are same and the CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to the extent of Rs.3,94,092/- whereas disallowance upheld by the Tribunal in A.Y.2008- 09 was Rs.25,000/-. We do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A).
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 →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026