SUPER AUTO FORGE PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to disallow 2% of exempt income as expenditure under Section 14A. However, it upheld the disallowance of setting off SEZ losses against normal business income.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed dividend income as exempt and sought to set off losses from an SEZ unit against normal business income. The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of expenditure under Section 14A and disallowed the set-off of SEZ losses.
What were the issues?
Whether expenditure attributable to exempt income is disallowable under Section 14A, and whether losses from an SEZ unit can be set off against normal business income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(5)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.
- Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT1,183 citing328 ITR 81 · 2010 · HC
- CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.543 citing41 DTR 233 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
- Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT516 citing347 ITR 272 · 2012 · HC
- CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd.470 citing323 ITR 518 · 2010 · HC · Read judgment
- Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd: 82 ITR 452 (SC) and Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT154 citing242 ITR 450 · 2002 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR
PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-VI, Chennai in ITA
No.1270/13-14/A-VI, Dated 21.02.2014 for the assessment year 2008- 2009 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.92CA(4) and 250 of the Income Tax Act,
ITA No.1008/Mds/2014. :- 2 -:
The assessee has raised two grounds i.e (i) disallowance
u/s.14
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026