← All Phrases

“disallowance under section 14A”

DisallowancesSection 14ASection 14A2,288 judgments

The decision most relied on for disallowance under section 14A is CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158), cited in 2,228 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on disallowance under section 14A

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
402 ITR 640 · 2018 · Supreme Court
1,596
citing judgments

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.

Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT
378 ITR 33 · 2015 · High Court
1,569
citing judgments

A disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income cannot be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant previous year.

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT
288 ITR 1 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,484
citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed merely because the assessee made interest-free advances, provided those advances were made for business purposes and commercial expediency. The Revenue cannot dictate a businessman's commercial decisions, but the assessee bears the onus to prove the business expediency.

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court
1,261
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court
1,183
citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.
165 ITD 27 · 2017 · ITAT
882
citing judgments

No disallowance under section 14A can be made while computing book profits under section 115JB unless the expenditure is debited to the profit and loss account and satisfies clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2).

Judgments citing disallowance under section 14A

Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4151/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.4151/मुं/2018(िन.व. 2014-15) M/S Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. 253, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan: Aaacr1772R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit-5(3)(1), Mumbai. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Ronak Doshi With Ms. Ayushi "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Pankaj Kumar & Sh. Pavan Kumar Beerla सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.03.2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Solitary Issue Assailing The Findings Of Cit(A) In Confirming Disallowance Under Section 14A Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Sh. Ronak Doshi with Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. Pavan Kumar Beerla
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The assessee in appeal has raised solitary issue assailing the findings of CIT(A) in confirming disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 2 आअसं. 4151/मुं/2018 (िन.व. 2014-15) 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) read with Rule ... dissatisfaction in an objective manner as envisaged under section 14A(2) of the Act rejected assessee’s suo-moto disallowance and recomputed disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D to Rs. 2,78,47,591/-. Against the findings of AO, the assessee carried the issue in appeal before

Dosti Reality Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle, 1(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 157/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 157/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Circle-1(1)(1), Dosti Realty Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 1St Floor, Lawrence & Mayo Road, Mumbai-400 020 House, 276, Dr. D. N. Road, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccs0746E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rahul Hakani, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ajay Chandra, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 07.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 27.12.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Order Passed U/S 144C

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 154

construction work and not 3 I.T.A. No. 157/Mum/2022 Dosti Realty Ltd. for earning exempt income. Addition of the same amount again for disallowance under section 14A leads to double addition and is apparent from the record. Dismissal of the grounds to rectify such apparent mistake

M/S. Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 69/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Prestige Estates Projects The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Prestige Falcon Tower, Income Tax, No. 19, Brunton Road, Central Circle – 1 Bangalore – North, (1), Bangalore – 560 025. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcp8096K Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 23.11.2021 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. General Ground 1.1 The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru (`Ao") Has Erred In Passing The Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act-) In The Manner Passed By Him & The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bangalore

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

conscious decision, whether right or wrong, had been taken by the AO in making additions on account of compounding fee; illegal payments; disallowance under Section 14A of the Act and project management fee. This is not apparent from the assessment order of the AO as to whether he intended