STANDARD GREASES & SPECIALITIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer made disallowances under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii) read with Section 14A. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication in light of relevant judicial precedents.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns a disallowance of Rs. 45,72,840/- under Section 14A. The assessee argued that the disallowance exceeded exempt income and requested the matter be set aside for fresh consideration based on binding judgments.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance under Section 14A exceeded the exempt income and if the AO should reconsider the disallowance based on binding judgments.
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.
- HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT408 citing383 ITR 529 · 2016 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Shri Mayur Kisnadwala प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent by : Ms. Pooja Swarup, DR सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 06.03.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 07.04.2017 आदेश / O R D E R
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee on 5.10.2011 is against the order of the CIT (A)-22, Mumbai dated 19.04.2011 for the assessment year 2009-2010.
The only issue raised in the grounds revolves around the disallowance u/s 14A amounting to Rs. 45,72,840/-. In this regard, Ld Counsel for the assessee briefly narrated the facts of the case and submitted that the said disallowance exceeded the entire exempt income and also mentioning the matter is required to be set aside to the file of the AO for deciding the issue afresh considering the various binding judgments on the subject. It is further submitted that during the assessment proceedings, AO / CIT (A) may be directed to consider the binding judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd vs. DCIT [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bombay) as well as the decision of the ITAT in the caseof Garware Wall Ropes Ltd vs. Addl. CIT in and others dated 15.01.2014 for the proposition that the exempt income relatable to the investment in the sister concern is required to be exempt while calculating the average investment for the purpose of clause (iii) of Rule 8D(2) of the IT Rules, 1962. 3. On hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the relevant material placed before the Tribunal, we find that the Assessing Officers made disallowance u/s clause (ii) and (iii) of the Rule 8D(2) of the IT Rules, 1962 read with section 14A of the IT Act, 1961. Considering the same, we are of the opinion that the matter is required to be remanded to the file of the AO for deciding the issue afresh in the light of the above cited decisions on the subject. AO shall grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds raised
by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 07th April, 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 →- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026