DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI vs. RAJKUMAR IMPEX P LTD., CHENNAI
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, following a coordinate bench decision and the Delhi High Court ruling. The disallowance was restricted to the extent of exempt income.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D to the extent of exempt income. The assessee had earned minor dividend income in the relevant assessment years.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D should be restricted to the amount of exempt income.
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, ‘ C’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN
आदेश / O R D E R
PER BENCH
These are appeals files by the Revenue against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai in Income-tax Appeal No.231/16-17/A-3 dated 30.08.2017 for & 2852/CHNY/2017 :- 2 -: assessment year 2013-14, and in Income-tax Appeal No.230/16-17/A- 3 dated 30.08.2017 for assessment year 2013-14.
Mr.N.Madhavan, ACIT represented on behalf of Revenue and Ms.Hemalatha, C.A represented on behalf of assessee.
It was submitted by the ld.D.R that the only issue in both 3. these Revenue’s appeals was against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (in short ‘the Act’) read with Rule-8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘Rule’) to the extent of exempt income, following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s.Rayalla Corporation (P) Ltd. It was the submission that the Department has filed an appeal against the said decision before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and the same is pending. It was the submission that the order of Ld.CIT(A) was liable to be reversed and that the order of ld. Assessing Officer to be restored.
In reply, ld.A.R submitted that the assessee had earned dividend income of `8,072/- for assessment year 2013-14, and dividend income earned by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2852/CHNY/2017 :- 3 -:
was only `10,796/-. It was the submission that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt Ltd., Vs. C.I.T reported in (2015) 372 ITR 0694 (Delhi), as also the decision in the case of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s.Rayalla Corporation (P) Ltd. in ITA No.908/Mds./2015 vide order dated 16.10.2015. It was the submission that the order of the CIT(Appeals) was liable to be upheld.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. As it is noticed that the issue in these appeals is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in M/s.Rayalla Corporation (P) Ltd. referred supra wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal also followed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt Ltd., Vs. C.I.T referred supra and as it is noticed that, the Ld.CIT(A) has followed the judicial discipline in following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in M/s.Rayalla Corporation (P) Ltd. referred supra, we find no reason to interfere with & 2852/CHNY/2017 :- 4 -:
the order of the CIT(Appeals) and both the appeals filed by the Department stand dismissed.
In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 10th April, 2018, at Chennai.
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 Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026