SHAILESH SHAH SECURITIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that investments held as stock-in-trade and strategic investments should be excluded for computing disallowance under Rule 8D. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a share broker, claimed exempt income and made a suo moto disallowance under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer recomputed the disallowance as per Rule 8D, which was upheld by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether investments held as stock-in-trade and strategic investments are includible for computing disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
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.
- Gareware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. ACIT22 citing46 Taxmann.com 18 · 2014 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Ramlal Negi (JM)
O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.12.2014 passed by the learned CIT(A)-9, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2010-11. The solitary issue urged by the assessee relates to the disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act.
We heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is a share broker. During the year, the assessee earned tax free income of ` 5,90,893/- and claimed the same as exempt. The assessee disallowed a sum of ` 1,77,051/- u/s. 14A of the Act while filing return of income. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has computed the disallowance without any basis. Accordingly, he computed the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act as per provisions of rule 8D(2) of the Income Tax Rules. The assessee challenged the addition made by the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT(A), but could not succeed. Hence, the assessee has filed this appeal before us.
2 M/s. Shailesh Shah Securities Pvt. Ltd.
Learned AR submitted that the assessee is holding part of shares as its stock in trade and has also made investment in group companies as strategic investment. Learned AR submitted that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has held in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. Vs. Add.CIT (46 Taxmann.com 18) has held that strategic investment have to be excluded from the value of investment for the purpose of computing disallowance u/r. 8D(2) of the I.T. Rules. He further submitted that the Coordinate Bench has held in the case of DCIT Vs. India Advantage Securities Ltd. (ITA No. 6711/Mum/2011 dated 14.9.2012) that securities held as stock in trade cannot be considered for computing disallowance u/r. 8D. He submitted that the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of India Advantage Securities Ltd. (supra) has since been approved by Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide its order dated 13.4.2013 passed in of 2013. Learned AR further submitted that the assessee has made suo moto disallowance of ` 1.77 lakhs without properly understanding legal position of the provisions of section 14A and Rule 8D. Accordingly, he submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for computing the disallowance afresh. He further submitted that Hon'ble Coordinate Bench has held in the case of Nirshilp Securities Ltd. (ITA No. 4297/Mum/2014 dated 25.8.2016) that if the disallowance computed u/r. 8D(iii) goes below the disallowance offered by the assessee in the set aside proceedings, the Assessing Officer should compute the disallowance as per law and facts because it is a trite law that income has to be computed in accordance with the statutory provisions and not merely by the acquiescence of the assessee.
On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders passed by the tax authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions. We are of the view that there is merit in the contention of the assessee. According to the learned AR, investment held by the assessee consists of stock in trade, strategic investment and other investment. With regard to the stock in trade as well as 3 M/s. Shailesh Shah Securities Pvt. Ltd.
strategic investment the assessee is placing reliance on certain case laws which have expressed the view that they have to be excluded for the purpose of computing disallowance u/r. 8D(2) of the I.T. Rules. Hon'ble Coordinate Bench has also expressed the view in the case of Nirshilp Securities Ltd. (supra) that the disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D have to be computed in accordance with the statutory provisions and not merely by acquiescence of the assessee. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to compute the disallowance afresh by duly considering various decisions that may be relied upon by the assessee in the set aside proceedings. In case, the disallowance computed by the Assessing Officer goes below the disallowance made by the assessee, then the Assessing Officer should disallow the amount so computed by him only as per the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Nirshilp Securities Ltd. (supra).
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order has been pronounced in the Court on 11.4.2017.
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 →- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026