What is PCIT v. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned, and only investments that have yielded or are capable of yielding exempt income are considered for Rule 8D computation. The Assessing Officer must record objective satisfaction before rejecting the assessee's disallowance and applying Rule 8D, a principle also applicable to Section 115JB.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does PCIT v. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 14A, Section 1962, Section 143(3), Section 8D, Section 115JB.

PCIT v. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (414 ITR 122)

Q: How many judgments cite PCIT v. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.?

69 judgments on BharatTax cite PCIT v. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (414 ITR 122), spanning 2019 to 2026.

MAHABHADRA CONSTRUCTIONS LTD,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(2), DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5902/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 5902/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Mahabhadra Constructions Ltd., Vs Dcit, (Erstwhile Jaypee Development Circle-13(2), Corporation Ltd.), Sector-128, New Delhi-110002 Sultanpur, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201304 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcj9515H Assessee By : Sh. V. K. Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023–24/10552668445(1) Dated 21.08.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…73/- as administrative expenditure thereunder, in the Assessing Officer’s assessment as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 5. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that case law PCIT Vs. Caraf Builders and Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 122 (Del.) and ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 502/Del/2012 and CO No. 68/Del/2014 dated 16.06.2017 (Special Bench) have already settled the issue that only dividend yielding investments ought to be considered whilst computing such a disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Both the learned lower authorities have…

OPELINA FINANCE AND INVESTMENT LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1423/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] M/S. Opelina Finance & Vs Ito, Investment Ltd., 28, Nazafgarh Ward-19(2), Room Road, Delhi-110015. No.217, C.R.Building, Pan-Aaaco5195R New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Shri Utkarsh Kumar Gupta, Advocates Respondent By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.10.2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ITA No.1423/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “F” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15] M/s. Opelina Finance & vs ITO, Investment Ltd., 28, Nazafgarh Ward-19(2), Room Road, Delhi-110015. No.217, C.R.Building, PAN-AAACO5195R New Delhi-110002. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Shri Utkarsh Kumar Gupta, Advocates Respondent by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 15.10.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL,…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…TTJ 213 (Del. Trib.)  DCIT v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd: 152 TTJ 522 (Asr. Trib.) 10. With regard to investments not resulting in exempt income to be excluded, ld. AR relied on the following decisions :-  PCIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.) Ltd.: 414 ITR 122 (Del) – SLP filed by the Department dismissed in SLP(C) No. 25130/2019 reported in 268 Taxman 317  ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT: 374 ITR 108 (Del.)  REI Agro Ltd v. DCIT: 144 ITD 141 (Kol. Trib.) – Revenue appeal dismissed by Calcutta HC in appeal No.GA No.3581 of 2013  ACIT v. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd.: 165 ITD 27 / 188 TTJ 1 (Del Trib.) (SB) …

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…TTJ 213 (Del. Trib.)  DCIT v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd: 152 TTJ 522 (Asr. Trib.) 10. With regard to investments not resulting in exempt income to be excluded, ld. AR relied on the following decisions :-  PCIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.) Ltd.: 414 ITR 122 (Del) – SLP filed by the Department dismissed in SLP(C) No. 25130/2019 reported in 268 Taxman 317  ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT: 374 ITR 108 (Del.)  REI Agro Ltd v. DCIT: 144 ITD 141 (Kol. Trib.) – Revenue appeal dismissed by Calcutta HC in appeal No.GA No.3581 of 2013  ACIT v. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd.: 165 ITD 27 / 188 TTJ 1 (Del Trib.) (SB) …

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 310/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

…No Disallowance Made Despite Earning Exempt Income The assessee earned exempt income and had substantial investments, yet failed to make any suo motu disallowance under Section 14A.This is contrary to:  PCIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2019] 414 ITR 122 (Del HC)  CIT v. State Bank of Patiala [2018] 99 taxmann.com 286 (SC)  DCIT v. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum (P.) Ltd. [2018] 94 taxmann.com 434 (Mumbai Trib.) These rulings affirm that disallowance under Section 14A is mandatory, and failure to do so constitutes furnishing inaccurate particulars, attracting penalty. CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated…

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

ITA 309/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

…lowance Made Despite Earning\nExempt Income\n\nThe assessee earned exempt income and had substantial investments, yet failed to\nmake any suo motu disallowance under Section 14A.This is contrary to:\n\n• PCIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2019] 414 ITR 122\n(Del HC)\n• CIT v. State Bank of Patiala [2018] 99 taxmann.com 286 (SC)\n• DCIT v. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum (P.) Ltd. [2018] 94 taxmann.com 434\n(Mumbai Trib.)\n\nThese rulings affirm that disallowance under Section 14A is mandatory, and\nfailure to do so constitutes furnishing inaccurate particulars, attracting penalty.\n\nCBDT Circular No. 5/…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19(1), MUMBAI vs. JASWANT JAYANTILAL SHAH , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1479/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Blei.T.A. No. 1479/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Lavanya Rajouhrohit, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 23Section 23(4)(a)Section 23(4)(b)Section 250(4)Section 41(1)

…t income i.e., Rs.5,94,013/-. 4. We have carefully considered the findings of the ld. CIT(A). The findings of the ld. CIT(A) is in line with the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 122 (Del.). Respectfully following the same, we decline to interfere. 5. Proceeding further the AO noticed that the assessee owns a bungalow at Deolali and a shop at Ahmedabad and found that the assessee has not offered income from house property regarding the same. Invoking the provisions of Section 23(4)(b) of the Act, the AO was of the firm belie…

JAYPEE INFRA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 13(1) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 3992/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 249Section 250

…no exempt income in the hands of the assessee in the relevant year. We take note of the fact that the Ld. CIT(A), following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case 5 Jaypee Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. of Caraf Builders & Constructions (P) Ltd. 414 ITR 122, restricted the disallowance of Rs.7,42,37,499/- made under section 14A of the Act by the AO to the extent of the exempted income of Rs.4,35,00,000/- in assessee’s case in the AY 2017-18. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not followed his own decision in the subsequent year. It is worth mentioning here that the assessee, on the issue of disallowance un…

JAYPEE INFRA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed as above

ITA 3946/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 14A

…rtly allowed. The Ld. CIT(A), in principle upheld the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. However, he, following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the 2 Jaypee Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. case of Caraf Builders & Constructions (P) Ltd. 414 ITR 122, restricted the disallowance under section 14A of the Act to the extent of the exempted income of Rs.4,35,00,000/- under normal provisions of the Act. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.7,42,37,499/- (disallowance of Rs.7,42,37,499/- made under section 14A of the Act) in working out the book profit under section 115JB of the Act.…

ADDI. CIT SPL. RANGE-9, NEW DELHI vs. THE HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 7597/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 14Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…sm provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. This view of ours is further fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd vs ACIT reported in 374 ITR 108 (Del) and PCIT vs Caraf Builders & Constructions P Ltd reported in 414 ITR 122 (Del). 6.6. In view of the aforesaid observations, we hold that the ld. AO had not recorded any objective satisfaction having regard to the accounts of the assessee as to why the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee is incorrect. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of H T Media Ltd referred…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. WADHWAGROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the\nassessee is partly allowed

ITA 2323/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shalini R. Jain, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R

Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…18. This issue is no more res integra as has been held in plethora of\njudgements for example PCIT v. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\nINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nI.T.A. No. 1988/Mum/2024\nI.T.A. No. 2323/Mum/2024\n17\n(2019) 414 ITR 122 (Delhi)(HC). Respectfully following the same, we do\nnot find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A).\nAccordingly, Ground No. 6 is dismissed.\n19. Ground No. 7 relates to the deletion of common area maintenance\n(CAM) charges of Rs.44,60,16,088/- as business income instead of\nincome from house property and the addition of d…

WADHWAGROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the\nassessee is partly allowed

ITA 1988/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shalini R. Jain, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R

Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…This issue is no more res integra as has been held in plethora of\njudgements for example PCIT v. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.\n\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\nINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nI.T.A. No. 1988/Mum/2024\nI.T.A. No. 2323/Mum/2024\n\n17\n(2019) 414 ITR 122 (Delhi)(HC). Respectfully following the same, we do\nnot find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A).\nAccordingly, Ground No. 6 is dismissed.\n19. Ground No. 7 relates to the deletion of common area maintenance\n(CAM) charges of Rs.44,60,16,088/- as business income instead of\nincome from house property and the addition of d…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. WELSPUN LIVING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3719/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia & Shri Ajay Nagpal, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R

Section 115JSection 14A

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3719/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner of Income Welspun Living Limited, Tax, Mumbai Mumbai Vs B Wing, 9th Floor Trade Word, Lower Parel Delisle Road S.O. Maharashtra - 400013 [PAN: AAACW1259N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Harsh Kapadia & Shri Ajay Nagpal, A/Rs Revenue by : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 30/01/2025 घोषण…

AIR INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5632/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri.Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…14A is called for in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of Jt. Investments (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 59 taxmann.com 295/233 Taxman 117/372 ITR 694 (Delhi) and Pr. CIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P) Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 167/261 Taxman 47/414 ITR 122 (Delhi) (SLP dismissed by SC). It is well settled law that disallowance under section 14A can be made only in respect of those investments which have yielded tax free income during the year as held in Caraf Builders (supra) and ACB India Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2015] 62 taxmann.com 71/235 Taxman 22/374 ITR 108 (Delhi). The AO is thus directed to dele…