ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, CHANDIGARH
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to 2008-09, a reasonable disallowance under Section 14A can be made on a percentage of exempt income. The Tribunal directed a disallowance of 5% of the tax-exempt income.
What were the facts?
The assessee corporation had income from warehousing, which was exempt. The Assessing Officer disallowed common expenses under Section 14A based on gross profit rate. The High Court restored the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.
What were the issues?
The applicability of Section 14A for disallowing expenses related to tax-exempt income and the method for calculating such disallowance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT1,596 citing247 ITR 162 · 2018 · Read judgment
- Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT, Range10(2), Mumbai97 citing234 CTR 1 · 2010 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBE & Dr. B.R.R.KUMAR
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण,च�डीगढ़ �यायपीठ, “बी ” च�डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH �ी संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य एवं डा. बी.आर.आर, कुमार, लेखा सद�य BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBE AND Dr. B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 459/CHD/2006 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 1996-97 The ACIT, M/s Punjab State बनाम Circle 2(1), Warehousing Corpn Ltd., Chandigarh SCO 74-75, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh �थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCP7825J अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent
(Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri T.N Singla, CA Respondent by : Sh. Ashish Abrol, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 21.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.10.2018
ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 27.3.2006 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A), Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’]
The sole issue involved in this appeal is relating to the disallowance u/s 14Aof the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). Earlier the appeal of the assessee was decided by this Tribunal vide order dated 24.12.2007 against which, the Revenue preferred appeal before the Hon’ble jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order dated 16.2.2015 in ITA No.834 of 2008 has restored the
ITA No. 459-chd-2006 M/s Punjab State Warehousing Corpn Ltd., Chandigarh 2
matter to the Tribunal with a direction for adjudication afresh in
accordance with law in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court
dated 3.10.2013 passed in ITA No.848-08 in the own case of the
assessee.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee corporation
during the year was involved in two activists i.e. in the activity of
procurement of food grains and activity of warehousing. The
income from the warehousing activity was exempt u/s 10(29) of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The Assessing officer,
therefore, bifurcated the common expenses incurred for both the
activities i.e. warehousing and procurement and made disallowance
u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act on account of indirect expenditure
incurred for earning of tax exempt income from warehousing
activity on the basis of gross profit rate. The matter travelled to the
Tribunal and the ITAT vide its consolidated order dated 24.12.2007
held that the Assessing officer was not empowered to invoke
section 14A of the Act in respect of the assessments for assessment
years beginning on or before 1.4.2001 as the original assessment
were made before the incorporation of section 14A of the Act. The
Tribunal held that the Assessing officer was debarred from taking
recourse to section 14A of the Act by virtue of the proviso to the
said section. In view thereof, ground of appeal raised by the
assessee relating to the applicability of the provisions of section
14A for the year under consideration was dismissed.
ITA No. 459-chd-2006 M/s Punjab State Warehousing Corpn Ltd., Chandigarh 3
However, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the
appeal filed by the Revenue held that, “It was accepted that the
assessment orders were passed under section 143(3) of the Act. In
other words, the proviso to section 14A was not attracted in the
present cases and the provisions of section 14A having its
applicability retrospectively w.e.f. 1.4.1962 would thus be
applicable to the assessment years in question”.
In view thereof the present appeals have been restored back
to the file of the Tribunal and we proceed to decide the same after
hearing both the authorised representatives.
The issue to be addressed in the present appeals is about the
disallowance to be worked out under section 14A of the Income Tax
Act in relation to the common and indirect expenses attributable to
the tax exempt income u/s 10(29) of the Act from warehousing
activity.
We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties
and have also gone through the records on this issue. It may be
observed that in the case of ‘Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co.
Ltd. 234 CTR 1 (Bom.) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held
that Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules r.w.s. 14A(2) of the I.T. Act is not
arbitrary or unreasonable but can be applied only if the assessee's
method is not satisfactory. It has been further held that Rule 8D is
not retrospective and applies from A.Y. 2008-09. For the years for
which Rule 8D is not applicable and in the event of that the AO is
not satisfied with the explanation/working given by the assessee,
ITA No. 459-chd-2006 M/s Punjab State Warehousing Corpn Ltd., Chandigarh 4
disallowance under section 14A has to be made on a reasonable
basis. Almost similar view has been expressed by Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in the case of 'Maxopp Investment Ltd, & Others' vs.
CIT (247 ITR 162). In respect of cases prior to assessment year
2008-09, the different co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal have
observed that certain percentage of exempt income can constitute a
reasonable estimate for making disallowance for the years earlier to
assessment year 2008-09. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the
case of ‘CIT Vs. Godrej Agrovet Ltd.,’ (ITA No. 934/2011) decided
on 8.1.2013 has upheld the order of the Tribunal directing the
Assessing officer to restrict the disallowance to the extent of 2%
of the total exempt income earned by the assessee. The Coordinate
Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ‘M/s ‘CIBA India Ltd
Vs. DCIT’ ITA No. 9128/2010 for assessment year 2006-07 vide
order dated 20.2.2015 while relying upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Godrej
AGrovet Ltd.,’(supra) taking into account the consideration of facts
and circumstances of that case has held that the expenditure equal
to 4% of the exempt income earned by the assessee would
constitute reasonable disallowance u/s 14A and directed
accordingly.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
in our view, 5% of the tax exempt income of the assessee from
warehousing activity would constitute a reasonable disallowance
for the purpose of section 14A of the Income tax Act. We direct
accordingly.
ITA No. 459-chd-2006 M/s Punjab State Warehousing Corpn Ltd., Chandigarh 5
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 04.10.2018
Sd/- Sd/- बी.आर.आर, कुमार संजय गग� ( B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG ) लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member
�दनांक/Date: 04.10. 2018 “आर.के.” आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File
सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar
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 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
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- 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