CAMELOT ENTERPRISES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 39, 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 only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for disallowance under Section 14A. Expenses related to shares held as stock-in-trade cannot be disallowed under Section 14A.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed that investments on which no exempt income was received should be excluded for disallowance under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer included stock-in-trade in average investment for disallowance calculation. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance but directed re-computation.
What were the issues?
Whether investments yielding no exempt income should be excluded for Section 14A disallowance. Whether expenses related to stock-in-trade shares are disallowable under Section 14A.
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.
- CIT v. G.K.K. Capital Markets (P) Ltd.11 citing392 ITR 196 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Shamim Yahya
O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of learned CIT(A) dated 10.10.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2011-2012.
The grounds of appeal
read as under:- “1. On facts and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as "Ld. CIT(A)"] had erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the investments amounting to Rs.4,95,00,754/- as on 31.03.201 1 on which no exempt income was received during the year for disallowance u/s.!4A r.w.r. 8D. Under the facts and circumstances of the matter, he ought to have direct the Assessing Officer to exclude the investments amounting to Rs.4,95,00,754/- while computing the disallowance made u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D.
2. On facts and in law, the Ld. C!T(A) had erred in including the value of shares held as stock-in-trade while computing disallowance as per Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A of the I.T. Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the matter, he ought to have excluded the shares held as stock-in-trade for the purview of Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A.
. M/s.Camelot Enterprises Private Limited. 3. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal
, at any time before or at, the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon. ITAT to decide this appeal according to law.”
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
4. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to provide the working of disallowances under section 14A of the Act. In response, the assessee vide letter dated 08/01/2014 has stated that the assessee has not incurred any interest expenditure and hence only 0.5% of the average investments should be disallowed as disallowance under section 14A. On examination of the working provided by the assessee, the A.O. observed that while arriving at figure of average investment, the assessee did not consider the value held as stock in trade. The A.O. hold that the AR of the assessee was confronted on the issue of considering the value of stock in trade, and after discussing this issue, the disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D is computed as under.
1. Opening Stock and Investment as on 01.04.2010 Rs. 4,67,208/- Closing Stock and Investment as on 31.03.2011 Rs. 12,26,75,300/- Total Rs. 12,31,42,508/- Average of stock and Investment Rs. 6, 15,7 1,245/- 0.5% of Average Investment Rs. 3,07,856/- 2 Interest Paid Nil Total Disallowance under section 14A rwr 8D Rs. 3,07,856/-
5. Upon assessee’s appeal, learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding as under:-
. M/s.Camelot Enterprises Private Limited. “The facts available on records suggest that the Ld. AO has not made any disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i) and 8D(2)(ii). However, the Ld. AO has made disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) at Rs. 3,07,856/-. In view of above discussions and respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Third Member Bench, ITAT, Mumbai in the case of D.H. Securities P Ltd (supra), the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing 0.5% of average value of investments (including both investments made in shares and in closing stock of shares) stands confirmed. However, since the Ld. AO has been directed above to re- compute the average value of investments after excluding the value of investments made in non convertible debentures, income from which is not exempt, so the Ld. AO is directed to re-compute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) at 0.5% of average value of investments as recomputed and directed herein. In result the Ld. AO shall re-compute the disallowance under section 14A rw Rule 8D as per above directions.”
Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.
I have heard both the Counsel and perused the records. I find that the first ground raised by the assessee is covered in assessee’s favour by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal as under:-
Special Bench decision in the case of ACIT v. Vincent Investment P. Ltd., order dated 22.06.2017. Only those investments are to be considered for computing the average value of investment which yield exempt income during the year.
As regards the second ground raised, I find that the same is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala and Hon’ble Calcutta High Court decision in the case of CIT v. G.K.K. Capital Market Ltd. 392 ITR 196. In these
. M/s.Camelot Enterprises Private Limited. cases, it was expounded that where shares held as stock in trade the expenses relatable there to cannot be disallowed u/s 14A.
No decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court to the contrary has been produced before me. The decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce no way disputes the above proposition. Accordingly, I set aside the issue raised in this appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the issue afresh in light of the case laws cited hereinabove.
In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
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 →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026