PALIWAL INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 19(1), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned. Therefore, the AO was directed to restrict the disallowance to the amount of exempt income.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed exempt income of Rs. 4234/- as dividend on shares. The Assessing Officer (AO) made a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance under Section 14A can exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. The applicability of the ratio laid down in Caraf Builders and Constructions.
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.
- PCIT v. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.69 citing414 ITR 122 · 2019 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Paliwal Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT B-14, Greater Kailash Part-I, Circle – 19 (1) South Delhi, New Delhi New Delhi-110048 PAN No.AABCR7764E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 04/12/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 04/12/2023 ORDER
PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 19.05.2023 by NFAC, Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10.
The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act. 3. At the very outset the Counsel for the assessee brought to our notice the exempt income u/s.10(34) of the Act being dividend on shares amounting to Rs.4234/-. It is the say of the Counsel that any disallowance u/s.14A should not exceed exempt income as held by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Caraf Builders and Constructions 414 ITR 122. 4. The DR could not bring any distinguishing decision in favour of the revenue. 5. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that the dividend income claimed to be exempt is Rs.4234/-, therefore, the ratio laiddown by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (supra) fairly apply on the facts of the case. We accordingly direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to Rs.4234/- only. The appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 6. Decision announced in the open court on 04.12.2023.
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.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026