PUNJAB PRODUCE HOLDINGS LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the AO must record satisfaction before making a higher disallowance under Section 14A than what was offered by the assessee. For book profit computation under Section 115JB, Section 14A and Rule 8D are not applicable, and the addition needs to be re-computed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a non-banking finance company, earned dividend income which was exempt from tax. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed a portion of expenditure under Section 14A, and this was sustained partly by the CIT(A). The assessee had itself offered a disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO can make a higher disallowance under Section 14A without recording satisfaction, and the applicability of Section 14A/Rule 8D for book profit computation.
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.
- REI Agro Ltd. v. DCIT346 citing144 ITD 141 · 2013 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘SMC’, KOLKATA
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM]
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘SMC’, KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM] Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Punjab Produce Holdings Ltd................................……………….....................Appellant Birla Building, 4th Floor, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee road, Kolkata – 700 001 [PAN: AABCM 7053 M] DCIT CIR 5(1),...................………………………………………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 8th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances by: Shri Akkal Dudhuwala, AR appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. CIT appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : February 22, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : March 21, 2018
ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata dated 01.06.2017 and the solitary issue raised therein as pressed and argued by the learned counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing before the Tribunal relates to the disallowance under section 14A made by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) while computing the income of the assessee under the normal provisions of the Act and book profit under section 115JB of the Act.
The assessee in the present case is a non-banking finance company which is engaged in the business of granting of loans and advances and dealing and investing in shares. The return of income
Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Punjab Produce Holdings Ltd. for the year under consideration was filed by it on 29.09.2009 declaring a total income at Nil. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the A.O. that the dividend income earned by the assessee company during the year under consideration was 91.73% of its total income. He also noted that the total expenditure incurred by the assessee was Rs. 45,26,761/- Since the dividend income was claimed to be exempt from tax, the Assessing Officer worked out the expenditure incurred in relation to the earning of the exempt income at Rs. 41,52,398/- being 91.73% of Rs. 45,26,761/- and made a disallowance to that extent under section 14A while computing the income of the assessee under the normal provisions of the Act. He also added the said amount to the profit as shown by the assessee in the profit and loss account to compute its book profit under section 115JB of the Act.
The disallowance made by the A.O. under section 14A while computing the income under the normal provisions of the Act as well as book profit under section 115JB of the Act was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as material available on record, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the A.O. to re-compute the disallowance under section 14A by applying Rule 8D after taking into account only that investment in shares which had yielded dividend income during the year under consideration. For this conclusion, he relied on the decision of the ITAT in the case of REI Agro Ltd. vs DCIT 144 ITD 141 (Kol). Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Punjab Produce Holdings Ltd.
I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee, a disallowance of Rs. 5,44,958/- was offered by the assessee in its computation of total income on account of expenditure incurred in relation to the earning of exempt income as required by section 14A. He has contended that the A.O., however, proceeded to make higher disallowance under section 14A without recording any dissatisfaction about the correctness of the disallowance offered by the assessee under section 14A. By relying on the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Chengmari Tea Co. Ltd. vs DCIT rendered vide its order dated 02.02.2018 in he contended that in the absence of any satisfaction recorded by the A.O. disputing the correctness of the disallowance offered by the assessee under section 14A having regard to the account of the assessee, the higher disallowance made by the A.O. was not sustainable and the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified to sustain the same even partly. I find merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the assessee. As held by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Chengmari Tea Co. Ltd. (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the assessee, where the assessee makes a claim that only the particular amount is to be disallowed under section 14A and the A.O. proposes to make higher disallowance by invoking section 14A, he has to record a satisfaction about the incorrectness of the amount disallowed by the assessee having regard to the accounts of the assessee. Such satisfaction is a requisite condition for making higher disallowance by invoking section 14A and in the absence of such satisfaction, any disallowance
Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Punjab Produce Holdings Ltd. made by the A.O. by invoking section 14A more than what is made by the assessee is not sustainable. I accordingly modify the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the A.O. to restrict the disallowance under section 14A to Rs. 5,44,958/- while computing the income of the assessee under the normal provisions of the Act.
As regards the addition made by the A.O. on account of disallowance under section 14A while computing the book profit of the assessee company under section 115JB which is sustained partly by the Ld. CIT(A), the learned representatives of both the sides have agreed that provisions of section 14A and Rule 8D are not applicable while computing the book profit of assessee company under section 115JB of the Act as held in the various judicial pronouncements including the decisions of this Tribunal. As held in the said judicial pronouncements, the amount of expenditure relatable to any income which is exempt under section 10 that is required to be added as per Clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB is required to be worked out by the A.O. separately independent of provisions of Section 14A of Rule 8D. I, therefore, restore to this issue to the file of the A.O. for re- computing such addition to be made while computing the book profit of the assessee company under section 115JB of the Act. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the assessee, if the amount of such addition worked out by the A.O. exceeds the disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 14A, the A.O. shall restrict the said addition to the extent of the disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A).
Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Punjab Produce Holdings Ltd. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 21st March, 2018.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- D.C.I.T Cir - 10(1), Kolkata vs M/S Eureka Forbs Ltd, KolkataKolkata12 Jan 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on REI Agro Ltd. v. DCIT
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It then adjudicated on various grounds, allowing some and dismissing others, often referencing its own findings from earlier assessment years.
- D.C.I.T Cir - 10(1), Kolkata vs M/S Eureka Forbs Ltd, KolkataKolkata12 Jan 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on REI Agro Ltd. v. DCIT
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It then adjudicated on various grounds, allowing some and dismissing others, often by referring to its decision in ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019 for AY 2012-13. The appeals ...
- ACIT, Circle - 6(2), Kolkata vs M/S Williamson Magor & Company Limited…Kolkata31 Dec 2019Partly Allowed
Also relies on REI Agro Ltd. v. DCIT
The Tribunal held that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed under Section 14A if borrowed funds were used for acquiring shares that generated dividends. It also directed a recomputation of disallowance under Rule 8D...
- Shri Vimal Ramniklal Ambani, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), AhmedabadAhmedabad18 Jul 2019Partly Allowed
Also relies on REI Agro Ltd. v. DCIT
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A must be within the parameters of Rule 8D and that interest expenses cannot be disallowed if the assessee's own funds exceed the diverted funds. The disallowance of in...
- DCIT, Cir-8, Kolkata vs M/S Itc Limited, KolkataKolkata28 Nov 2018Partly Allowed
Also relies on REI Agro Ltd. v. DCIT
The Tribunal allowed the adjustment, following a Bombay High Court decision which permitted netting of such interest payments and receipts. The Revenue's appeal on this point was 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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026