Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

402 ITR 640Supreme Court of India2018#21 most cited

What is Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Disallowance under Section 14A is not automatic and requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D. Only investments yielding exempt income are considered for disallowance, irrespective of their strategic nature.

1,596

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Maxopp Investment Ltd v CIT · Maxopp SC 2018 · Section 14A disallowance · Rule 8D application · expenditure for exempt income · only dividend bearing investments · satisfaction Section 14A(2) · strategic investment disallowance · disallowance not automatic · 402 ITR 640

Also reported as

91 Taxmann.com 154254 Taxmann 325301 CTR 489

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 115JBSection 8DSection 37(1)Section 1961Section 250Section 143(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 14a(1)section 14a(2)strategic investmentdisallowance under section 14adisallowance u/s 14asection 10(34)section 14asection 36(1)(vii)section 40a(2)enduring benefitbook profitssection 115j

Judgments citing Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Daawat Foods Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 4042/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 132Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 80I

…1 ITA Nos. 4042 & 4159/Del/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) DCIT Vs Daawat Foods Ltd. Central Circle-19 (Previously Daawat Foods P. New Delhi Ltd.) Unit No. 134, 1st Floor, (APPELLANT) Rectangle I, Saket District Centre, New Delhi AACCD3698N (RESPONDENT) Daawat Foods Ltd. Vs DCIT (Previously Daawat Foods P. Central Circle-19 Ltd.) Unit No. 134, 1st Floor, New Delhi Rectangle I, Saket District Centre, New Delhi AACCD3698N (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant/Re…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Warehousing Corp., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 5784/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

…using Corporation are a tool in assessee corporation’s trade. The learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala, which was given alongwith the Civil Appeal in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs CIT, 402 ITR 640. The learned Counsel further submitted that the investments in State Warehousing Corporation are legacy investment and no borrowed funds have been utilized. No decision was required as to period of holding or valuation since same is as per the statutory mandate and shares are not valued and cannot be traded. The learned Counsel submitted that in…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Warehousing Corp., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 3440/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

…using Corporation are a tool in assessee corporation’s trade. The learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala, which was given alongwith the Civil Appeal in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs CIT, 402 ITR 640. The learned Counsel further submitted that the investments in State Warehousing Corporation are legacy investment and no borrowed funds have been utilized. No decision was required as to period of holding or valuation since same is as per the statutory mandate and shares are not valued and cannot be traded. The learned Counsel submitted that in…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Warehousing Corp., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 3439/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

…using Corporation are a tool in assessee corporation’s trade. The learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala, which was given alongwith the Civil Appeal in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs CIT, 402 ITR 640. The learned Counsel further submitted that the investments in State Warehousing Corporation are legacy investment and no borrowed funds have been utilized. No decision was required as to period of holding or valuation since same is as per the statutory mandate and shares are not valued and cannot be traded. The learned Counsel submitted that in…

M/S. Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 2201/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

…using Corporation are a tool in assessee corporation’s trade. The learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala, which was given alongwith the Civil Appeal in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs CIT, 402 ITR 640. The learned Counsel further submitted that the investments in State Warehousing Corporation are legacy investment and no borrowed funds have been utilized. No decision was required as to period of holding or valuation since same is as per the statutory mandate and shares are not valued and cannot be traded. The learned Counsel submitted that in…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 3942/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

…using Corporation are a tool in assessee corporation’s trade. The learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala, which was given alongwith the Civil Appeal in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs CIT, 402 ITR 640. The learned Counsel further submitted that the investments in State Warehousing Corporation are legacy investment and no borrowed funds have been utilized. No decision was required as to period of holding or valuation since same is as per the statutory mandate and shares are not valued and cannot be traded. The learned Counsel submitted that in…

Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 3885/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

…using Corporation are a tool in assessee corporation’s trade. The learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala, which was given alongwith the Civil Appeal in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs CIT, 402 ITR 640. The learned Counsel further submitted that the investments in State Warehousing Corporation are legacy investment and no borrowed funds have been utilized. No decision was required as to period of holding or valuation since same is as per the statutory mandate and shares are not valued and cannot be traded. The learned Counsel submitted that in…

ACIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S Dlf Universal Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the ld AO is partly allowed

ITA 3432/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Dlf Universal Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 3Rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Arjun Circle-1(1), Marg, Dlf City, Phase-1, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Aaacj1655P (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Dlf Universal Ltd, Circle-1(1), 3Rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Gurgaon Arjun Marg, Dlf City, Phase-1, Gurgaon Pan: Aaacj1655P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Aman Preet, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

…ts are made for strategic purposes. We find that this controversy has come to an end by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxxop Investment Ltd Vs. CIT Civil Appeal No. 104/20162018] 91 taxmann.com 154 (SC)/[2018] 254 Taxman 325 (SC)/[2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC)/[2018] 301 CTR 489 (SC) wherein, it has been held that dominant purpose for which investment into shares are made is not relevant for disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. The Honourable supreme court held that :- “34. Having clarified the aforesaid position, the first and foremost issue that falls for consideration is as to whether the dominant…

M/S Dlf Universal Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the ld AO is partly allowed

ITA 3391/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Dlf Universal Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 3Rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Arjun Circle-1(1), Marg, Dlf City, Phase-1, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Aaacj1655P (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Dlf Universal Ltd, Circle-1(1), 3Rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Gurgaon Arjun Marg, Dlf City, Phase-1, Gurgaon Pan: Aaacj1655P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Aman Preet, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

…ts are made for strategic purposes. We find that this controversy has come to an end by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxxop Investment Ltd Vs. CIT Civil Appeal No. 104/20162018] 91 taxmann.com 154 (SC)/[2018] 254 Taxman 325 (SC)/[2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC)/[2018] 301 CTR 489 (SC) wherein, it has been held that dominant purpose for which investment into shares are made is not relevant for disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. The Honourable supreme court held that :- “34. Having clarified the aforesaid position, the first and foremost issue that falls for consideration is as to whether the dominant…

M/S Sinnar Thermal Power Ltd(Formerly Rattanindia Nasik Power Ltd), Delhi vs. Dy CIT CC 6 (4), Mumbai

ITA 252/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2021AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)

…cogent reasons, the ld AO cannot resort to proceed directly with the computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC). Per Contra, the ld DR argued that the ld AO had duly reviewed the Note 23 to the financial statements and proceeded to apply Rule 8D thereon , which clearly tantamounts to recording dissatisfaction of the ld AO on the claim made by the assessee companies. It was further argued by the ld AR that the assessee companies were flooded with suffi…

The ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Sonsltd, Mumbai

Appeal stand allowed to that extent

ITA 4041/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2021AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.4041/Mum/2007 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Acit-2(3) M/S. Tata Sons Ltd. बिाम/ Room No.555 Bombay House Aaykar Bhavan 24, Homi Modi Street Vs. Mumbai – 400 020. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4060-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3664/Mum/2007 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/S. Tata Sons Ltd. Acit-2(3) बिाम/ Bombay House Room No.555 24, Homi Modi Street Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. Mumbai – 400 020. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4060-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji -Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Singh-Ld.Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 23/03/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement Assessment Year 2003-04

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji -Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh-Ld.CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80MSection 90

…rference. Accordingly, ground No.2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 10.2 However, Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the contention of controlling interest would no longer be applicable in view of the recent decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. (402 ITR 640) which has rejected the theory of dominant object. This decision has not been considered in the aforesaid decision as well as other decision of group concerns as relied upon by the assessee. The Ld. CIT-DR also submitted that Sec.14A would be applicable since deduction u/s 80M is claimed by the assessee. The deduction u/s 80M is available only to…

M/S Sunrise Industrial Traders Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-6, Mumbai

ITA 4956/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Sunrise Industrial Traders Cit(Appeals)-6, 3Rd Floor Limited; 503 Commerce House, Vs. Room No. 10, A Wing, Mittal 140 Nagindas Master Road; Court, Nariman Point, Fort, Mumbai – 400 023. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan No. Aaacs8256R (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Ms. C.J Ahuja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…M/s Sunrise Industrial Traders Ltd. Vs. CIT(Appeals)-6, Mumbai 1 ITA No. 4956/Mum/2019 – A.Y 2016-17 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Sunrise Industrial Traders CIT(Appeals)-6, 3rd Floor Limited; 503 Commerce House, Vs. Room No. 10, A Wing, Mittal 140 Nagindas Master Road; Court, Nariman Point, Fort, Mumbai – 400 023. Mumbai – 400 021. PAN No. AAACS8256R (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by : Ms. C.J Ahuja, A.R Revenue by : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, D.R Date of Hearing : 01.04.2021 Date of pronouncem…

Greatship (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 901/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

Section 143(3)

…and investment activity consistently. Therefore, he submitted, the disallowance made by the assessing officer should be deleted. In support of such contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the following decisions:- 1. Maxxop Investments (I) Pvt Ltd vs CIT 402 ITR 640 (SC) 2. Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd vs DCIT 394 ITR 449 (SC) 3. PCIT vs Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd 400 ITR 212 (Bom) 4. PCIT vs Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd 113 taxmann.com 303 (Bom) 26. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, the assessing officer having recorded proper satisfaction while invoking section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2), I.T.…

Champshi De vs. Hi Shah, Dadar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1020/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am Shri Champshi Devshi Shah Acit-15(1)(2), 385, N.C. Kelkar Road, R. No. Ab 483A, Dadar (W), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400028 M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeps5844C

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Makadia (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manpreet Duggal (Sr. DR)
Section 14A

…disallowance of Rs. 12,05,976/- was made under section 14A of the Act in the assessment. 6. This action of the AO was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). We find that the law is now very well by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments (402 ITR 640) wherein it has been held that disallowance under section 14A of the Act cannot exceed exempt income. There is no dispute that the exempt income derived by the assessee is only Rs. 8,64,141/-. The assessee before us is not seeking any reduction for disallowance of expenses made voluntarily in the sum of Rs, 14,57,932/- which itself is more than…

Hero Motocrop Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

…his regard was placed on the following decisions: - CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers 326 ITR 1(SC) - Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. VS. DCIT: 394 ITR 449(SC) - Maxopp Investment Ltd: 347 ITR 272 (Del.)- Affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 402 ITR 640 - CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd.: 401 ITR 445 (SC) - PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd.: [2019] 261 Taxman 179 (Delhi) - H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: 399 ITR 576 (Del) - Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) - PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.) - CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H) - CIT vs. I.P. Support Services In…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hero Honda Motors Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6302/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…thus, applicable from assessment year 2008-09 onwards and were not applicable during the relevant assessment year 2005-06. The Ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions: - CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd: 401 ITR 445 (SC) - Maxxop Investment Ltd. v. CIT: 402 ITR 640 (SC) 3.0.4 The Ld. AR for the assessee further submitted that the assessing officer made an ad hoc disallowance of 0.5% of the average Hero Motorcorp Ltd. vs. ACIT & DCIT investment by applying Rule 8D automatically, without pointing out any specific expenditure having being incurred by the assessee to earn dividend income. It was submitted tha…

M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6282/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…thus, applicable from assessment year 2008-09 onwards and were not applicable during the relevant assessment year 2005-06. The Ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions: - CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd: 401 ITR 445 (SC) - Maxxop Investment Ltd. v. CIT: 402 ITR 640 (SC) 3.0.4 The Ld. AR for the assessee further submitted that the assessing officer made an ad hoc disallowance of 0.5% of the average Hero Motorcorp Ltd. vs. ACIT & DCIT investment by applying Rule 8D automatically, without pointing out any specific expenditure having being incurred by the assessee to earn dividend income. It was submitted tha…

ITO 2 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Archway Investment Co.Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed as above

ITA 3822/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2021AY 2014-15
Section 115JSection 14A

…al before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. 9. We find that the assessee's plea of investment being strategic in nature is no more sustainable in view of honourable Supreme Court decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd v/s CIT 402 ITR 640. Hence, this ground is dismissed. 10. The assessee's plea that when interest free funds are available, which are more than the impugned investment then no disallowance under section 8D(ii) of the Act is permissible is sustainable on the touchstone of honourable jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) and Re…

Jay Ketan Parikh, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1955/MUM/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69A

…support of his arguments, the Ld. D.R. submits that the same are not accepted by the Revenue and have been challenged before the higher judicial forums and have also not attained finality so far. As regards the decision of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC), the Ld. D.R. submits that several propositions by tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court were changed by the Apex Court and therefore the decisions by the tribunals and High Courts are amenable to change. The Ld. D.R. submits that there is no definition of incriminating material in the Act and while framing assessment under section 153A of the…

ACIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S I.B. Holdings Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 4432/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma (DR)
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 14A

…e Supreme Court in the case of CIT(Central) 1 v/s Chettinad Logistics Pvt ltd, (2018) 95 taxmann.com 250, in which the SLP filed by the department was rejected on merits on the same issue and by the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154). 4.8 Respectfully, relying on the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it is held that the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D) was not warranted in this case. In the light of the foregoing discussion, disallowance of Rs.3,00,49,824/- u/s.14A is hereby deleted. This ground stands allowed.” 5. Undisputedly, the assessee has no exempt income i…