UFLEX LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, NOIDA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) was illegal as the Assessing Officer failed to record the mandatory 'satisfaction'. Consequently, the addition made under Section 14A for normal provisions and the corresponding addition under Section 115JB were deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed its income tax return, and the Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 59,93,373/- and Rs. 1,39,11,673/-. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The assessee appealed further, primarily challenging disallowances under Section 14A.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A can be made without recording the prerequisite satisfaction by the AO, and whether such disallowance can be added back for computing book profit under Section 115JB.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 12.08.2025 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Noida (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)") arising out of assessment order dated 27.12.2018 of the Learned Assessing Officer/Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter
2 referred to as "Ld. AO") under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ((hereinafter referred to as "the Act”)) Act for assessment year 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed Income Tax Return declaring total income of Rs.1,59,33,08,690/- under the normal provisions of the Act and book profit of Rs.2,25,92,70
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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 →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026