COPPER ROLLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 15(1)(2), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the assessee itself had disallowed the entire expenditure in its computation of income, no further disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was justified. The disallowance made by the revenue authorities was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in shares and securities business, earned exempt income. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 3,02,051 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee argued that it had already disallowed all expenses in its computation of income.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is permissible when the assessee has already disallowed all related expenses in its computation of income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY
Aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 22nd March 2017, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–24, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2012–13.
The only dispute in the present appeal relates to disallowance made of ` 3,02,051, under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) r/w rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962.
2 Copper Rollers Pvt. Ltd.
Brief facts are, the assessee a company is engaged in the business of shares and securities and letting out of properties. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 27th December 2012, declaring total income of ` 1,79,90,320. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that in the relevant previous year the assessee has earned exempt income of ` 1,42,052, called upon the assessee to explain why disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D should not be made. Though, the assessee objected to the proposed disallowance, however, the Assessing Officer rejecting the objections of the assessee proceeded to disallow an amount of ` 3,02,051 under section 14A r/w rule 8D.
Though, the assessee challenged the disallowance before the first appellate authority, however, it was unsuccessful.
The learned Authorised Representative drawing MY attention to the Profit & Loss account, computation of income and notes to the audit report submitted that the entire expenditure debited to the Profit & Loss account was disallowed by the assessee itself in the computation of income. Thus, he submitted, when the assessee itself has disallowed the entire expenditure and has not claimed any expenditure, there is no justification in making further disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D.
3 Copper Rollers Pvt. Ltd.
The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
I have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. Though, it is a fact that the assessee has debited expenditure of ` 61,69,442=70 to the Profit & Loss account, however, in the computation of income, the assessee itself has disallowed the entire expenditure, meaning thereby, the assessee has not claimed any expenditure at all. In fact, in Col. 17 of the audit report itself, a copy of which is at Page–2 of the paper book, it has been specifically stated that all expenses debited to the Profit & Loss account have been disallowed. In view of the aforesaid fact, no further disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D could have been made by the Departmental Authorities. Accordingly, I delete the disallowance of ` 3,02,501. Grounds raised are allowed.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19.09.2018
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 →- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026