VIDITI INVESTMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(3), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Revenue had accepted a similar disallowance made by the assessee in previous assessment years based on the same methodology. Following the rule of consistency, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to the amount suo moto offered by the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed dividend income as exempt and made a suo moto disallowance of Rs. 47,445/- under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer, however, computed a higher disallowance of Rs. 34,83,097/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the amount offered by the assessee or computed by the AO, considering the principle of consistency.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT1,695 citing193 ITR 321 · 1992 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI PAWAN SINGH
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-18, Mumbai dated 15.5.2014 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act.
During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had made investments in 2 exempt income yielding assets amounting to Rs. 126.69 crores on which it has earned dividend of Rs. 29.5 crores which has been claimed as exempt. The AO further found that the assessee has suo moto made disallowance of Rs. 47,445/-. Not convinced by this, the AO proceeded by invoking the provisions of Sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D and computed the disallowance at Rs. 34,83,097/-.
Aggrieved by which, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) but without any success.
Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the computation of income and pointed out the suo moto disallowance of Rs. 47,445/-. The Ld. Counsel further drew our attention to the profit and loss account for the year and pointed out that the income is from PMS on which the assessee has claimed expenses amounting to Rs. 98,85,129/- and other expenses of Rs. 47,445/- have been disallowed. The Ld. Counsel further drew our attention to Schedule-L relating to other expenses. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that on identical methodology, the Revenue has accepted the disallowance of other expenses only made by the assessee of A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. Necessary documentary evidences have been placed on record.
Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative could not bring any distinguishing fact in favour of the Revenue.
We have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel and with the assistance of the Ld. Counsel, we have gone through the related documentary evidences placed before us. We find that similar disallowance was made by the 3 assessee in A.Y. 2010-11 which has been accepted by the AO in the assessment made u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 8.3.2013. Similarly, in A.Y. 2008-09 vide letter dated 29.10.2010 made u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The AO at para-4.4. of his order has restricted the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the amount of other expenditure. A similar view was taken by the AO in A.Y. 2009-10 also vide order dt. 30.9.2011 made u/s. 143(3) of the Act.
In our considered opinion for three consecutive assessment years the Revenue has taken a consistent view in so far as the disallowance made u/s. 14A is concerned, the same view should be taken for the assessment year under consideration also following the rule of consistency as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang Vs CIT 193 ITR 321. We, accordingly, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 47,445/-. Ground No. 1 is accordingly allowed.
Since we have allowed ground No. 1, other grievances of the assessee become otiose.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17th December, 2015. (PAWAN SINGH) (N.K. BILLAIYA) "या"यक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated : 17th December, 2015 व."न.स./ Rj , Sr. PS
4 आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant
""यथ" / The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयु"त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 3. आयकर आयु"त / CIT
"वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, 5. मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"या"पत ""त //// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.
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 Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- 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