THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, TRIVANDRUM

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.Nos.89 & 90/COCH./2017 Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2012-2013 M/s. State Bank of The ACIT, Circle-1(1), vs. Travancore, Head Office (Tax Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar PO, Cell), 2nd Floor, Poojappura, TRIVANDRUM – 695 003. TRIVANDRUM – 695 012. PAN AAGCS9120G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri Ninad Patade, CA For Revenue : Sri Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 20.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 ORDER PER BENCH :

These Revenue’s twin appeals arise against the as many orders of the learned CIT(A), Trivandrum, in appeal ITA.No.89, 44 & 12/CIT(A),TVM/2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 both dated 12.01.2017, for the assessment years 2010-2011 and 2012-2013, in proceedings u/sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), assessment year-wise, respectively.

Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2 ITA.Nos.89, 90, 251 & 252/Coch./2017 2. The Revenue pleads the identical sole substantive ground in both these appeals as under :

3. Restriction of 14A disallowance: Disallowance u/s. 14A was calculated as per Rule 8D. There is no provision in the Act that the disallowance should not exceed the exempt income. As per circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014, CBDT clarified that Rule 8D read with section 14A of the Act provides for disallowance of the expenditure even where tax payer in a particular year has not earned any exempt income.

4. For these and other grounds that may be advanced at the time of hearing the order of the learned Commissioner of Appeals, Trivandrum on the above points may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.

3 ITA.Nos.89, 90, 251 & 252/Coch./2017 3. Suffice to say, there is no dispute between the parties that the learned CIT(A) has partly upheld the assessment findings thereby restricting the impugned sec.14A read with Rule 8D disallowance only to the extent of exempt income itself which is now a settled proposition Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Del.). That being the clinching case, we see no merit in Revenue’s instant sole substantive ground. Rejected accordingly. We make it clear before parting that nothing contained herein shall be taken as our expression on merits of the issue and therefore, the assessee shall be indeed at liberty to raise all factual or legal arguments regarding applicability of sec.14A read with Rule 8D in principle in appropriate proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.09.2024.