STANDARD FIBRECHEM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 1(3), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification. The AO is directed to examine the assessee's accounts to determine if the interest expenditure was solely for trading or also for investments.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed interest expenditure, which the Revenue disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) for earning tax-exempt income. The assessee contended the interest was for trading activities, not investments, while the Revenue was unsure.
What were the issues?
Whether interest expenditure was incurred for trading activities or investments, and the genuineness of such expenditure, for the purpose of disallowance under Section 14A.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI SANJAY GARG
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 05.06.2012 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2008-09.
The short issue raised in this appeal is relating to the disallowance of interest expenditure under section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules incurred for earning the tax exempt income by the assessee. The stand of the assessee is that no interest expenditure has been incurred in relation to investments. The interest expenditure has been incurred by the assessee in relation to trading activity in shares and not in relation to the investments whereas the stand of the Revenue is that from the records it is not clear that the interest expenditure has been incurred in relation to trading activity only. 2 M/s. Standard Fibrechem Pvt. Ltd.
Both the Ld. Representatives of the parties submitted that the issue may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) for verification of the facts as to whether the interest expenditure was incurred by the assessee in relation to the trading activity in shares only or in respect of investments also and also to verify the genuineness of the said expenditure. We, accordingly, restore this issue to the file of the AO in the terms as indicated above and direct the AO to examine the accounts of the assessee and give a definite finding whether the interest expenditure was incurred in relation to trading activity only or in respect of investments also and to decide the issue in accordance with law.
With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 03.02.2016.
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. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026