REI Agro Ltd. v. DCIT

144 ITD 141Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#221 most cited

What is REI Agro Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D applies only to investments that have yielded exempt income in the year under consideration.

346

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

REI Agro Ltd v DCIT · Section 14A disallowance · Rule 8D · exempt income · dividend yielding investments · non-yielding investments · expenditure disallowance · Rule 8D application · Section 115JB · exempt income computation

Also reported as

35 Taxmann.com 404160 TTJ 107144 ITR 141

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 115JBSection 250Section 143(3)Section 8DSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

disallowance under section 14adisallowance u/s 14asection 14asection 10previous yearcompanysection 14indiatotal incomepersonbusinessinterest

Judgments citing REI Agro Ltd. v. DCIT

M/S. Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 2094/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 115JSection 234CSection 801Section 80I

…2014-15 to 2016-17 M/s Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Ltd. 8.3. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that there is no exempt income during the year by following the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of REI Agro Ltd. in 144 ITD 141 (Cal) whereby the Hon’ble Court has affirmed the decision of Hon’ble Tribunal reported in 144 ITD 141 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopps Investments Ltd. 402 ITR 640 (SC). 8.4. After hearing the rival parties and perusing the material on record. We find that during the year the assessee has not earned any exempt income. T…

M/S Keventer Agro Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2527/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 10(34)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…investments from which dividend income was earned. The Ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order has observed as under: “As regards to disallowance of the expenses under rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii), the Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT in the case of REI Agro Ltd. vs. DCIT (144 ITD 141) (Kol-Trib) has held that it is only the Investments which yields dividend during the previous year that has to be considered while adopting the average value of investments for the purpose of Rule 80 (ii) and (iii) of the rules. The aforesaid view of the Tribunal has since been affirmed as correct by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in G.A. No 35…

Sansera Engineering Limited (Formerly Known As Sansera Engineering Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)- 14, Bangalore

ITA 132/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Sansera Engineering Ltd., Cit(A) - 14, Vs. 143/A, Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru. Bommasandra Industrial Estate, Bommasandra Post, Bengaluru – 560 105. Pan : Aaecs 2440 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…which does not form part of the total income and this can be done only by taking into consideration the investment which has given rise to exempt income which does not form part of the total income (ACB India Ltd. v. ACTT (374 ITR 108), REI Agro Ltd. v. DCIT (144 ITD 141), DCIT v. Teenlok Advisory Services (P.) Ltd. (159 ITD 991)). In the present case, the assessee had earned dividend income during the year only from the investments in mutual funds and not from the investments in subsidiaries. Therefore, for the purpose of calculating "average investments", opening and closing balance of investments in mutual fun…

M/S Shree Vinay Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT-C .C.-1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 82/KOL/2022[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata07 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

Section 14A

…on’ble High Court of Calcutta order dated 23.12.2013 in ITA No. 161 of 2013 in the case of REI Agro Ltd. vs. DCIT. We note that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the aforesaid case has upheld the action of this Tribunal in the case of REI Agro Ltd. vs. DCIT (144 ITD 141)(Kol) held that for making disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D, while applying Rule 8D2(iii) the investment only which has given rise to the exempted income should be taken into consideration. As per the aforesaid ratio of the judgment, in the instant case the following facts are noted: Sl. No. Shares/MF Bal. as on 31.03.2011 Bal. as on 31.03…

J.L.Morison(India) Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 138/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rajesh Kumar)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA (BEFORE SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 138/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 J.L. Morison (India) Ltd.....................................................................................................Appellant [PAN: AAACJ 0248 C] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata……….................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. P.R. Kothari, A/R, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Dinesh Sawmkie, CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : January 4th,…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 967/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…does not or shall not form part of the total income, should be taken into consideration for the computation. Investments from which no dividend income was received should not be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance. REI Agro Ltd. V. DCIT – 144 ITD 141 (kol.). 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to restrict the addition to Rs.2,57,99,631/- u/s 14A while determining the Book Profits u/s 115JB. The grounds raised by the revenue read as under 2.1 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that as per Board’s Circular No.5/2014 dt. 11.12.2014 when the expenditur…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 947/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…does not or shall not form part of the total income, should be taken into consideration for the computation. Investments from which no dividend income was received should not be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance. REI Agro Ltd. V. DCIT – 144 ITD 141 (kol.). 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to restrict the addition to Rs.2,57,99,631/- u/s 14A while determining the Book Profits u/s 115JB. The grounds raised by the revenue read as under 2.1 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that as per Board’s Circular No.5/2014 dt. 11.12.2014 when the expenditur…

ACIT Corporate Circle 1, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1883/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…does not or shall not form part of the total income, should be taken into consideration for the computation. Investments from which no dividend income was received should not be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance. REI Agro Ltd. V. DCIT – 144 ITD 141 (kol.). 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to restrict the addition to Rs.2,57,99,631/- u/s 14A while determining the Book Profits u/s 115JB. The grounds raised by the revenue read as under 2.1 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that as per Board’s Circular No.5/2014 dt. 11.12.2014 when the expenditur…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Madurai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1846/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…does not or shall not form part of the total income, should be taken into consideration for the computation. Investments from which no dividend income was received should not be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance. REI Agro Ltd. V. DCIT – 144 ITD 141 (kol.). 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to restrict the addition to Rs.2,57,99,631/- u/s 14A while determining the Book Profits u/s 115JB. The grounds raised by the revenue read as under 2.1 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that as per Board’s Circular No.5/2014 dt. 11.12.2014 when the expenditur…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1272/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…does not or shall not form part of the total income, should be taken into consideration for the computation. Investments from which no dividend income was received should not be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance. REI Agro Ltd. V. DCIT – 144 ITD 141 (kol.). 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to restrict the addition to Rs.2,57,99,631/- u/s 14A while determining the Book Profits u/s 115JB. The grounds raised by the revenue read as under 2.1 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that as per Board’s Circular No.5/2014 dt. 11.12.2014 when the expenditur…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1078/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…does not or shall not form part of the total income, should be taken into consideration for the computation. Investments from which no dividend income was received should not be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance. REI Agro Ltd. V. DCIT – 144 ITD 141 (kol.). 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to restrict the addition to Rs.2,57,99,631/- u/s 14A while determining the Book Profits u/s 115JB. The grounds raised by the revenue read as under 2.1 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that as per Board’s Circular No.5/2014 dt. 11.12.2014 when the expenditur…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1077/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…does not or shall not form part of the total income, should be taken into consideration for the computation. Investments from which no dividend income was received should not be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance. REI Agro Ltd. V. DCIT – 144 ITD 141 (kol.). 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to restrict the addition to Rs.2,57,99,631/- u/s 14A while determining the Book Profits u/s 115JB. The grounds raised by the revenue read as under 2.1 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that as per Board’s Circular No.5/2014 dt. 11.12.2014 when the expenditur…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1076/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…does not or shall not form part of the total income, should be taken into consideration for the computation. Investments from which no dividend income was received should not be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance. REI Agro Ltd. V. DCIT – 144 ITD 141 (kol.). 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to restrict the addition to Rs.2,57,99,631/- u/s 14A while determining the Book Profits u/s 115JB. The grounds raised by the revenue read as under 2.1 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that as per Board’s Circular No.5/2014 dt. 11.12.2014 when the expenditur…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1063/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…does not or shall not form part of the total income, should be taken into consideration for the computation. Investments from which no dividend income was received should not be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance. REI Agro Ltd. V. DCIT – 144 ITD 141 (kol.). 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to restrict the addition to Rs.2,57,99,631/- u/s 14A while determining the Book Profits u/s 115JB. The grounds raised by the revenue read as under 2.1 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that as per Board’s Circular No.5/2014 dt. 11.12.2014 when the expenditur…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1062/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…does not or shall not form part of the total income, should be taken into consideration for the computation. Investments from which no dividend income was received should not be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance. REI Agro Ltd. V. DCIT – 144 ITD 141 (kol.). 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to restrict the addition to Rs.2,57,99,631/- u/s 14A while determining the Book Profits u/s 115JB. The grounds raised by the revenue read as under 2.1 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that as per Board’s Circular No.5/2014 dt. 11.12.2014 when the expenditur…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1061/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…does not or shall not form part of the total income, should be taken into consideration for the computation. Investments from which no dividend income was received should not be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance. REI Agro Ltd. V. DCIT – 144 ITD 141 (kol.). 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to restrict the addition to Rs.2,57,99,631/- u/s 14A while determining the Book Profits u/s 115JB. The grounds raised by the revenue read as under 2.1 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that as per Board’s Circular No.5/2014 dt. 11.12.2014 when the expenditur…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1060/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…does not or shall not form part of the total income, should be taken into consideration for the computation. Investments from which no dividend income was received should not be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance. REI Agro Ltd. V. DCIT – 144 ITD 141 (kol.). 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to restrict the addition to Rs.2,57,99,631/- u/s 14A while determining the Book Profits u/s 115JB. The grounds raised by the revenue read as under 2.1 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that as per Board’s Circular No.5/2014 dt. 11.12.2014 when the expenditur…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1059/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…does not or shall not form part of the total income, should be taken into consideration for the computation. Investments from which no dividend income was received should not be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance. REI Agro Ltd. V. DCIT – 144 ITD 141 (kol.). 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to restrict the addition to Rs.2,57,99,631/- u/s 14A while determining the Book Profits u/s 115JB. The grounds raised by the revenue read as under 2.1 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that as per Board’s Circular No.5/2014 dt. 11.12.2014 when the expenditur…

DCIT, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Asharam Leasing and Finance (P) Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 15/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.15/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata………………………………………….……Appellant Vs. M/S Asharam Leasing & Finance (P) Ltd…..……......……...…..…..Respondent Cf-361, Salt Lake City, Sector-1, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Aacca1516G] Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 09, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 09, 2021 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 03.09.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Deleting The Disallowance U/S 14A Of Rs.3,50,07,137/- Without Considering The Facts Of The Case. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add To And/Or Alter, Amend, Modify Or Rescind The Grounds Hereinabove Before Of Hearing Of This Appeal.” No One Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Notice. Therefore, 2. We Proceed To Adjudicate The Present Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

Section 14ASection 250

…IT vs. Winsome Textiles (2009) 319 ITR 33(DelhI, Corrtech Energy P Ltd. (2014) 45 Taxman.com 116 (Gujarat High Court), CIT vs. M/s Shivam Motors (P) Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR (All) 277 including the decision of coordinate bench in the case of REI Agro Ltd. vs. DCIT 144 ITD 141 (Kol) as upheld in Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in G. A. No. 3581 of 2013. In all the above referred to case laws, the Hon’ble High Courts have been unanimous to hold that no disallowance is attracted u/s 14A of the Act in case the assessee has not earned any income not forming part of the total income. The Ld. DR could not point out any de…

M/S Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 973/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chetan R., Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14A

…; • Priya Exhibitors (P) Ltd. v. ACIT reported in 54 SOT 356 (Delhi); • DCIT vs. Ashish Jhunjhunwala- ITA No.1890/Ko1/2012 (Kolkata Bench ITAT); • Kalyani Steels Ltd. v. Addl.CIT - ITA No.1733/PN/2012 (Pune Bench-B, ITAT); • REI Agro Ltd., v. DCIT reported in 160 TTJ 107 (Kolkata); • ACIT v. Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co.Ltd. - [20141 46 taxrnann.com 284 (Pune) 7. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of CIT v. Hero Cycles Limited reported in 323 ITR 518 (P&H) has held that disallowance under section 14A requires finding of incurring of expenditure and where it is found that no…