DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE POWER LTD, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is limited to the extent of exempt income earned. For AY 2018-19, in the absence of any exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible. The amendment by the Finance Act 2022 was held to be prospective.
What were the facts?
For AY 2015-16, the assessee claimed business loss. The Assessing Officer (AO) made a significant disallowance under Section 14A, which was partly sustained by the CIT(A). For AY 2018-19, the assessee had no exempt income, but the AO made a disallowance under Section 14A, which was deleted by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A can exceed exempt income, and whether it is permissible when no exempt income is earned. Also, the applicability of amendments to 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(6)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.
- ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.789 citing82 Taxmann.com 415 · 2017 · HC
- South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT508 citing130 Taxmann.com 178 · 2021 · SC · Read judgment
- PCIT v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd.354 citing141 Taxmann.com 289 · 2022 · HC
- PCIT v. M/s Era51 citing288 Taxmann 384 · 2022 · HC
- Cargo Motors (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT46 citing145 Taxmann.com 641 · 2022 · HC
- 414 and PCIT v. Gujarat Fluro Chemicals Ltd.21 citing155 Taxmann.com 135 · 2023 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Per bench :-
1) For assessment year 2015 – 16 , ITA number 3043/M/2022 is filed by Reliance Power Ltd (the assessee appellant) and ITA number 3424/M/2023 is filed by the Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15 (3) (1), Mumbai (the learned assessing officer/AO) again
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Reliance Power Limited, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…Mumbai22 Jan 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on 414 and PCIT v. Gujarat Fluro Chemicals Ltd. and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is limited to the extent of exempt income earned. For AY 2018-19, in the absence of any exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible. The amendment...
- Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on 414 and PCIT v. Gujarat Fluro Chemicals Ltd. and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that goodwill created as a result of amalgamation is a depreciable asset, as it came into existence due to the amalgamation itself, not a transfer of an existing asset. The Tribunal also noted that amen...
- ACIT, Mumbai vs K Raheja Corp Private Limited, MumbaiMumbai22 Jan 2026Dismissed
Also relies on Cargo Motors (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that disallowance under Section 14A should only consider investments that have actually generated exempt income. The AO's disallowance was deleted.
- ACIT, Mumbai vs Reliance Power Ltd, MumbaiMumbai17 Dec 2025Dismissed
Also relies on Cargo Motors (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had partly sustained the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the m...
- Hincon Holdings Limited, Mumbai vs ITO, Ward 15(2)(1), MumbaiMumbai15 Dec 2025Remanded
Also relies on Cargo Motors (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that investments held as stock-in-trade should be excluded from the computation of disallowance under Section 14A. It also directed that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered.
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 →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
