DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. EVERSMILE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY P.LTD, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal followed its previous decision for the Assessment Year 2009-10, which had accepted the assessee's offered disallowance as reasonable. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A).
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) made a disallowance of Rs. 45.22 lakhs under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] restricted this disallowance to Rs. 8.23 lakhs, considering the assessee's own offer in a prior year.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the quantum of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for expenses incurred in relation to investments in subsidiary and associated companies.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) �� केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार अनुसार PER RAJENDRA, AM- अनुसार राजे�� �� �� लेखा सद�य सद�य राजे लेखा लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य राजे राजे Challenging the order dt.24.10.14 of CIT(A)-36, Mumbai the AO has filed the present appeal. Assessee-company, engaged in the business of development and construction of property filed its return of income on 9.9.2010 declaring its total income at Rs.6.39 crores. The AO completed the assessment u/s. 25.3.13 u/s. 143(3) of the Act determining the income of the assessee at Rs.7.75 crores. 2.Effective Ground of appeal is about restricting the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.Rule 8D of the IT Rules,1962,(Rules).During the assessment proceedings the AO made a disallowance of Rs.45.22 lakhs invoking the provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D of the Rules. Aggrieved by the order of the AO,the assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA. Before him it was argued that in the earlier year the then FAA had confirmed the disallowance at Rs.7.28 lakhs as offered by the assessee itself. Following the order of his predecessors the FAA restricted the disallowance to 10% of the total disallowance i.e. Rs.8.23 lakhs.
3.Before us,the Departmental Representative( DR) supported order of the AO.The Authorised Representative (AR)stated that the Tribunal had decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee,while deciding the appeal for the AY.2009-10.
7630/M/14 Eversmile
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 →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026