LIKHAMI COMMERCIAL CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA
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 for the purpose of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii), only investments yielding tax-free income during the previous year should be considered for calculating the average value of investments.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a Non-Banking financial company, earned dividend income which was not chargeable to tax. The Assessing Officer disallowed 'other expenses' under Rule 8D(2)(iii) based on the average of total investments in the balance sheet.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) should be based on the average of total investments or only those investments that yielded tax-free income.
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.
- ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT364 citing374 ITR 108 · 2015 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : KOLKATA
Before: Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM]
Date of Hearing : 14.11.2017. Date of Pronouncement : ORDER
Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM
This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated.27.01.2016 of. C.I.T.(A)-18, Kolkata relating to A.Y. 2009-10.
The only issue that needs consideration by the Tribunal is this appeal is the correctness of the disallowance of ‘other expenses’ under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) read with Sec.14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). 3. The Assessee is a company. It carries on the business of Non-Banking financing activities. It earned dividend income of Rs.27,43,330. The said income was not chargeable to tax. In terms of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules, disallowance of expenses that are incurred to earn tax free income has to be made. 4. The dispute in this appeal is with regard to disallowance of other expenses under rule 8D(2)(iii) of the rules. Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the rules relates to disallowance of other expenses incurred to earn tax free income and it reads as follows:
“(iii) an amount equal to one-half per cent. of the average of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total Likhami Commercial Co. Ltd. A.Y.2009-10 2 income, as appearing in the balance-sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year. 5. The AO computed disallowance in terms of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules of Rs.38,75,942/- as follows: Average Value of Investments: 76,34,80,813 (Investment as appearing in Balance Sheet as on 1st day of the previous year) + 76,68,96,156(Investment as appearing in Balance Sheet as on 1st day of the previous year) /2 = Rs.38,75,942.
The plea of the Assessee before CIT(A) was that only investments which yielded dividend income during the relevant previous year ought to be considered while working average value of investments. In support of such plea the Assessee relied on decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. Vs. ACIT 374 ITR 108 (Del.). The CIT(A) did not agree with the aforesaid plea of the Assessee on the ground that the facts of the Assessee’s case are different from the facts of the case decided by Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival submissions. Before us the plea of the learned counsel for the assessee was that while applying rule 8D(2)(iii) of the rules, AO should consider only the investments which yielded dividend income during the previous year and not the entire investments as appearing in the balance sheet while working average value of investments. This submission is made by the assessee keeping in view of the decision of the Tribunal (ITAT Kolkata) rendered in the case of REI Agro Ltd. Vs DCIT in wherein it was held that the only investments yielding dividend income during the previous year are to be considered in working average value of investments while computing disallowance u/s 14 A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. The aforesaid view of the Tribunal has since been affirmed as correct by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in G.A.No.3581 of 2013 in the appeal ITA No.432/Kol/2016 Likhami Commercial Co. Ltd. A.Y.2009-10 3 against the order of the Tribunal in the case of REI Agro Ltd. (supra). The learned DR relied on the order of the CIT(A).
After considering the rival submissions we are of the view that in the light of the decision referred to by the learned counsel for the assessee the plea of the assessee for restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is found to be justified. The AO is accordingly directed to consider the average value of investments by considering only the investments which yield tax free income during the previous year. The appeal of the Assessee is accordingly allowed.
In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 17.11.2017.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Doubledot Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 4(1)(4), MumbaiMumbai2 Feb 2026Allowed
Also relies on ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should be calculated only on investments from which exempt income was earned. Regarding business expenses, since the assessee is a public company with audited account...
- Macwear, Mumbai vs DCIT, Circle 22(1), MumbaiMumbai21 Jan 2026Allowed for statistical purposes
Also relies on ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee claimed to have provided submissions and computations for disallowance under Section 14A and also submitted audited balance sheets. The Tribunal found the facts peculiar and decided t...
- R. M. Commercial Pvt. Ltd., (Earlier Known… vs DCIT, Circle 5(1), KolkataKolkata17 Dec 2025Allowed
Also relies on ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT
The tribunal held that the assessee had no exempt income from shares/dividends, only from NHAI Interest Bonds, for which it correctly made a self-disallowance based on 1% of the relevant investment. Citing legal preceden...
- M/S. Enam Holding Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs ACIT 4(1), MumbaiMumbai29 Aug 2025Allowed
Also relies on ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A r.w.r 8D should only be computed on investments that have actually yielded exempt income, as per pronouncements by the Delhi High Court and a Special Bench of the...
- DCIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs Neel Metal Products Ltd, New DelhiDelhi9 Jul 2024Allowed
Also relies on ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT
The Tribunal decided that the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding alleged under-invoicing and unrecorded sales were not substantiated. The addition under section 56(2)(x) was also deleted due to lack of ind...
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