DCIT, CIR-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NAGREEKA EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA
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 held that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable when the assessee's interest-free funds are greater than the exempt investments. This principle was supported by a jurisdictional High Court decision.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed the deletion of a disallowance made under Section 14A for expenditure related to exempt dividend income. The assessee had significant interest-free funds exceeding its exempt investments.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when interest-free funds exceed exempt investments.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Sri S.S. Godara& Sri M. Balaganesh]
order : July 11th,2018 ORDER Per S.S. Godara, JM :- This Revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 challenges the correctness of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 17, Kolkata’s order (hereinafter the ‘CIT(A)’) order dated 12/12/2016 passed in case no. 199/CIT(A)- 17/Kol/14-15 reversing the Assessing Officer’s action invoking Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) r.w.r 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘Rules’) proportionate expenditure disallowance of Rs.34,23,594/- involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act.
Learned departmental representative contends during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the impugned disallowance of Rs.34,23,594/- as made in the course of assessment regarding assessee’s exempt income from dividends amounting to Rs.8,52,575/-. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant sole grievance. It emerges that the assessee had made exempt investments in question of Rs.14,68,62,075/- as against its share capital of Rs.6,25,50,000/- on 31/03/2008 & 31/03/2009 as well as reserves of surplus of Rs.782,899,111/- and Rs.765,272,054/-; respectively. These interest free funds exceed assessee’s above stated exempt investments. We therefore quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court decision in the case of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rasoi Limited being GA No. 633/2016, ITAT No. 109/2016, dt.
Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Nagreeka Exports Limited 15/02/2017 holding that the impugned disallowance provision does not apply in case the concerned tax payer’s interest free funds are more than the exempt investment in question. The Revenue’s sole substantive grievance is declined accordingly.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
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 →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026