SREE MAHABAL INVESTMENT (BOMBAY ) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3)(3), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that shares held as stock-in-trade should be excluded for Section 14A disallowance. It restricted the disallowance to 10% of dividend income and directed the AO to exclude the dividend income as it is exempt under Section 10(34).
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in share trading, received dividend income and claimed no disallowance under Section 14A as shares were stock-in-trade. The AO disallowed a significant amount under Rule 8D, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee also inadvertently failed to claim exemption for dividend income under Section 10(34).
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A is applicable to shares held as stock-in-trade, and whether dividend income exempt under Section 10(34) can be taxed if inadvertently offered.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Shri Pawan Singh (JM)
O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.6.2014 passed by the learned CIT(A)-22, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision rendered by the learned CIT(A) on the issue of disallowance made u/s. 14A of the I.T. Act under the normal provisions as well as under ‘book profit’ computed u/s. 115JB of the Act. The assessee is also aggrieved in taxing the dividend income though it is exempt u/s. 10(34) of the Act.
We heard the parties and perused the record. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in shares and securities. He submitted that the assessee has received dividend income of `2,36,677/- Inviting our attention to the Balance sheet filed in the paper book, the learned AR submitted that the assessee has held the shares as stock in trade only, i.e., the assessee did not hold any shares as investment. He submitted that the assessee did not make any disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act as the shares were held as stock in trade. However, the Assessing Officer computed the disallowance as per provisions of Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules at ` 8,48,314/- and added the same for computing total income as well as for computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The same was also confirmed by the learned CIT(A).
Learned AR submitted that the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of India Advantage Securities Ltd. (ITA No. 6711/Mum/2011) and also in the case of Devkant Synthetics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITA Nos. 2663 to 2665/Mum/2015 dated 28.10.2015) have taken the view that the shares held as stock in trade should be excluded from the “Investments” while computing disallowance u/r. 8D of the I.T. Rules. Accordingly the Learned AR submitted that there will be no requirement to make any disallowance u/r. 8D of the IT Rules, as value of Investment is nil for this year. He submitted that, under similar circumstances, the Tribunal has estimated the disallowance at 5% of dividend income in the case of Devkant Synthetics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Accordingly he submitted that the disallowance u/s. 14A may be computed on a reasonable basis.
On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the orders passed by the learned CIT(A).
We noticed that that the case of the assessee is covered by the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of India Advantage Securities Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held that the shares held as stock in trade should be excluded for the purpose of computing the disallowance u/r. 8D. Since the assessee has not held the shares as investments, the disallowance computed u/r. 8D would work out at Nil figure, if shares held as stock in trade is excluded. In the case of Devkant Synthetics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), under similar set of facts, the Coordinate Bench has computed the disallowance u/r. 14A of the Act at 5% of the dividend income. In the instant case, we have noticed that the assessee earned dividend income of ` 2,36,677/-. We noticed that the major expenditure of the assessee is interest expenditure of ` 26.38 lakhs and salary expenditure of ` 1.22 lakhs, which are predominantly incurred in connection with the share trading operations. We notice that the assessee has earned net profit of ` 24.75 lakhs. Considering these factual aspects, we are of the view that the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act may be restricted to 10% of the dividend income and the same would meet requirement of law. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act to 10% of the dividend income. The disallowance so computed shall also be adopted for computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act.
Learned AR submitted that the assessee has inadvertently omitted to claim exemption in respect of dividend income u/s. 10(34) of the Act. Accordingly, he prayed that the Assessing Officer may be directed to exclude dividend income while computing income of the assessee. It is well settled proposition of law that there is no estoppel against the law. An income which is otherwise not taxable cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee even if it is offered for taxation. In the instant case, the assessee has inadvertently failed to claim exemption of dividend income u/s. 10(34) of the Act. In view of the above said principle, we direct the Assessing Officer to exclude dividend income while computing total income of the assessee as the same is exempt u/s. 10(34) of the Act.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
Order has been pronounced in the Court on 25.1.2017.
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 →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026