DCIT CEN CIR 2(3), MUMBAI vs. ACME HOUSING INDIA P. 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of interest expenditure. This was based on the finding that the assessee's own funds exceeded its investments, following the Bombay High Court's ruling in HDFC Bank Ltd.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a builder and developer, claimed dividend income as exempt and disallowed a portion under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer made a larger disallowance under Rule 8D, considering interest and administrative expenses.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is warranted when the assessee's own funds are sufficient to cover investments.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)
The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the learned CIT(A)-48, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2013-14. The Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in granting relief to the assessee in respect of addition made u/s. 14A of the Act.
I heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee-company is a builder and developer. During the year under consideration, the assessee received dividend income of Rs. 6,97,000/- from mutual funds and claimed the same as exempt. The assessee disallowed a sum of Rs. 3.63 lakhs u/s. 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer took the view that the disallowance should be computed as per provisions of Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules and accordingly disallowed a sum of Rs. 38.44 lakhs under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I.T. Rules out of interest expenditure and Rs.5.30 lakhs u/r. 8D(2)(iii) out of administrative expenses. After giving set off of disallowance made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made the disallowance of Rs. 40.11 lakhs u/s. 14A of the Act. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that own funds available with it is more than the value of investment and hence as per the 2 M/s. Acme Housing India Pvt. Limited decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (383 ITR 523), no disallowance is called for out of interest expenditure. The learned CIT(A) agreed with the contention of the assessee and accordingly, deleted the disallowance of Rs. 38.44 lakhs made out of interest expenditure. The Revenue is aggrieved by the same.
I noticed that the learned CIT(A) has recorded a finding that own funds available with the assessee as on 31.3.2013 was to the tune of Rs. 4914.36 lakhs, while investment held by the assessee as on that date was Rs. 1810.56 lakhs, thus showing that the own funds available with the assessee is more than the value of investments. Accordingly the learned CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance made u/r. 8D(2)(ii) out of interest expenditure by following the decision rendered by jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (supra), wherein it was held that the disallowance out of interest expenditure is not called for when the own funds available with the assessee is more than the value of investments. Since decision taken by the learned CIT(A) is supported by the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra), we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue.
In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 21.2.2018.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Delite Infrastructure Private Limited, New… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 954/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- 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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Laxmipriya Biswal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax,BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Shree Jagannath Engineering,Angul vs. Assistant Commissioner, Angul Division ,AngulOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Archana Agro, Nayagarh vs. The Chief Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, CuttackOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Shree Jagannath Associates, Angul vs. The Chief Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, CuttackOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Sri Hardik Gowda vs. Sri Jayaram PKarnataka · 3 Nov 2026