ITO 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEECEE INVESMENT LTD, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue of net interest calculation to the AO for fresh examination, requiring the assessee to prove the nexus between interest expenditure and income. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude stock-in-trade shares from average investment value.
What were the facts?
The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order regarding disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii). The assessee, a share trader, sought to compute disallowance on net interest and exclude shares held as stock-in-trade from average investment value.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) should be computed on net interest, and if shares held as stock-in-trade should be excluded from average investment value.
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 B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Ravish Sood(JM)
O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-
The appeal of the revenue is directed against the order dated 12-10-2015 passed by Ld CIT(A)-5, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2011-12. The revenue is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in holding that the disallowance u/r 8D(2)(ii) should be computed on net interest and further the shares held as Stock in trade should be excluded while computing average value of investments.
We heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in shares and securities. Though the assessee disallowed a sum of Rs.64.37 lakhs u/s 14A of the Act, it filed revised claims before the AO and sought to reduce the disallowance to Rs.19.21 lakhs and further sought reduction on the basis of decisions rendered by the Tribunals. The same was rejected by the AO and accordingly he disallowed Rs.64.37 lakhs u/s 14A of the 2 M/s. Geecee Investment Ltd.
Act. The Ld CIT(A) agreed with the contentions of the assessee and hence allowed the appeal. Aggrieved, the revenue has filed this appeal.
With regard to the claim of “Net interest”, we notice that the Ld CIT(A) did not examine the nexus between the interest expenditure and interest income. Before us, the assessee did not furnish any document to show the nexus. In our considered view, the netting of interest can be allowed if the nexus between interest expenditure and interest income is shown. Accordingly, in our view, this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the AO. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the assessing officer with the direction to examine the claim of the assessee afresh. If the assessee is able to show the nexus between the interest expenditure and interest income, then net interest should be considered for computing disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I.T Rules.
With regard to the claim for exclusion of shares held as Stock in trade for computing average value of investments, We notice that the assessee has placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCI Ltd (250 CTR (Kar) 291). We also notice that the co-ordinate bench has expressed the view in the case of India Advantage Securities (ITA 6711/Mum/2011) that the shares held as stock in trade should not be considered for computing average value of investments. Consistent with the view taken in the above cited cases, we uphold the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue.
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 Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026