← 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

Oriental Aromatics Ltd, Mumbi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6331/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 4Section 92(1)

that in accordance with the decision of the coordinate bench in the assessee‟s own case for the immediately preceding assessment year, the disallowance under section 14A must remain confined to the tax-exempt income. We order accordingly, and remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer

Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2876/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 28

ground of appeal, raised by the assessee, is as follows: The learned CIT(A) Mumbai erred in directing the AO to compute the disallowance under section 14A of the Act, by invoking the provisions of Rule 8D of the income tax Rules, while computing income under normal provisions ... Income Tax Rules are being invoked”. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Assessing Officer has proceeded to make the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D without recording satisfaction for rejection of the disallowance computed by the assessee”. 17. As regards the Assessing Officer‟s grievance that the learned

DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2344/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28

ground of appeal, raised by the assessee, is as follows: The learned CIT(A) Mumbai erred in directing the AO to compute the disallowance under section 14A of the Act, by invoking the provisions of Rule 8D of the income tax Rules, while computing income under normal provisions ... Income Tax Rules are being invoked”. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Assessing Officer has proceeded to make the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D without recording satisfaction for rejection of the disallowance computed by the assessee”. 17. As regards the Assessing Officer‟s grievance that the learned

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 1645/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28

ground of appeal, raised by the assessee, is as follows: The learned CIT(A) Mumbai erred in directing the AO to compute the disallowance under section 14A of the Act, by invoking the provisions of Rule 8D of the income tax Rules, while computing income under normal provisions ... Income Tax Rules are being invoked”. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Assessing Officer has proceeded to make the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D without recording satisfaction for rejection of the disallowance computed by the assessee”. 17. As regards the Assessing Officer‟s grievance that the learned

Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -Circle-14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed accordingly

ITA 1074/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1074/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kotak Mahindra Asset बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-14(2)(1) Management Co. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. 27 Bkc, Bandra Kurla 400020. Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack5576C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Farrokh Irani Revenue By: Shri Shambu Yadav (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.04.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “(Nfac)”] In The Relevant A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 14{2) 1 Amounting To Rs.29,07,525 Under Section 14A By Invoking The Provisions Of Rule 8D(2)(Ii).

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Shri Shambu Yadav (DR)
Section 14A

Appellant and ignoring the detailed submissions made regarding the correctness of the Appellant's claim. 4. He further erred in holding that disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D is applicable to investments which are strategic in nature. 5. He further erred in holding that disallowance under section 14A ... income during the year and exclude those investments which have not yielded exempt income during the year. 12. Without prejudice to the above, disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income and therefore, the Appellant prays that the AO be directed to restrict the disallowance under section 14A

Fereshte D Sethna, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 16 (2) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee’s for the A

ITA 5873/MUM/2019[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. Mrunal Parekh &For Respondent: Shri. Anchal Sharma.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

restored the disputed issue to the file of the AO for fresh examination and adjudication of issue of whether or not disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the I T rules is necessary. As per the directions, the A.O. has issued notice under section ... Rules are ITA No. 5873 & 5874 /Mum /2019-Ms. Fereshte D. Sethna. invoked.The A.O. also observed that the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D mandated as per the CBDT Circular even, where if there is no dividend income earned/ received. Finally the A.O. considering the facts and the transactions

25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range -6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3085/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

under: 3 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 “The department is in appeal vide Ground 3 and 4 of their appeal contending that the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D must stand irrespective of the fact that a) entire interest has been disallowed under section

ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. 25 Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2798/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

under: 3 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 “The department is in appeal vide Ground 3 and 4 of their appeal contending that the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D must stand irrespective of the fact that a) entire interest has been disallowed under section

M/S. Praxair India Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2209/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

parties. This court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. KINGFISHER INVESTMENT INDIA LTD. vide judgment dated 29.09.2020 inter alia held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D has to be made even when taxpayer in a particular year has not earned any exempt income. This court relied ... same. However, from relevant extract of Paragraph 40, it is evident that only expenses proportionate to earning of exempt income could be disallowed under Section 14A of the Act and the decision of MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD is an authority for the aforesaid proposition that the provision is relatable to earning

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Bharath Energy Venture Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2418/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 28Section 29Section 3

alter, to amend or delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal. 13. The impugned disallowance under section 14A of the Act made by the AO was deleted by the CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee did not earn ... that case, a similar question arose, viz., whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance under section 14A of the Act when no dividend income had been earned by the assessee in the relevant assessment year ? The court referred to the decision of this ITA Nos.2417

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Bharath Energy Venture Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2417/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 28Section 29Section 3

alter, to amend or delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal. 13. The impugned disallowance under section 14A of the Act made by the AO was deleted by the CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee did not earn ... that case, a similar question arose, viz., whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance under section 14A of the Act when no dividend income had been earned by the assessee in the relevant assessment year ? The court referred to the decision of this ITA Nos.2417

Joynet Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-27, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 868/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 868/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Joynet Developers Llp बिधम/ Pr. Cit Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, 101/B, Bellona, Pant Nagar, Vs. 90 Feet Road, Ghatkopar Tower No.6, Vashi Station East, Mumbai-400075. Complex, Vashi-400703. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfk0186D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hemant Shah Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(“Pcit”)- 27, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “(Pcit)”] In View Of The Provisions U/S 263 Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Following Grounds Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-27 Has Erred In Setting Aside The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Learned

For Appellant: Shri Hemant ShahFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

under: - “Where AO during the course of original assessment verified all transactions of purchase / sales/stock of shares in case of assessee and made disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D(2), Commissioner having failed to make out that order of AO was erroneous as well as prejudicial to interest

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 4, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 1016/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)

profile between the Appellant and the comparable companies. The Hon'ble DRP erred in upholding the actions of the learned ACIT/ TPO. 11. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act 11.1. The learned ACIT and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in law and on facts in disallowing expenditure amounting ... earned by assessee during the year under consideration. Therefore respectfully following Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, disallowance under section 14A stands deleted. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed.” Admittedly for year under consideration 11. Ground

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 625/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)

profile between the Appellant and the comparable companies. The Hon'ble DRP erred in upholding the actions of the learned ACIT/ TPO. 11. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act 11.1. The learned ACIT and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in law and on facts in disallowing expenditure amounting ... earned by assessee during the year under consideration. Therefore respectfully following Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, disallowance under section 14A stands deleted. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed.” Admittedly for year under consideration 11. Ground

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7578/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv., Sh.Rohit Jain, Adv. & Ms. Soumya Jain, Ca Respondent By Ms. Sarita Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2022

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 254

under section 14A of the Act. 1.2 That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessing officer exceeded his jurisdiction in enhancing disallowance under section 14A while passing order under section 254/143(3) of the Act, in excess of the disallowance made in the first round. 1.3 That ... /assessing officer failed to appreciate that no part of administrative expenditure was incurred in relation to exempt income so as to warrant any disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 1.4 Without prejudice, the CIT(A)/ assessing officer grossly erred in computing disallowance under section 14A

Mr Firoz A Nadiadwala, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 881/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2022AY 2013-14
Section 14ASection 68

case are that assessee in this case is a famous film producer. In the assessment order assessing officer made following disallowances. Disallowance under section 14A 3. This disallowance was made by the assessing officer despite noting the submission of the assessee that the said investment is in a sister concern ... this regard is not sustainable. He also rejected the 2 Mr. Firoz A. Nadiadwala proposition that when no exempt income is earned no disallowance under section 14A is permissible. Disallowance of unsecured loan 4. In this regard the assessing officer made disallowance of unsecured loan of rupees 10 lakhs

M/S. Tejas Networks Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 582/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

Noida units. 4.1 Disallowance under Rule 8D read with Section 14A 5.1 The learned AO erred in making an additional disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs. 98,99,166 on the contention that the appellant has earned exempt income in the nature ... account of diversion of business funds to the investments and hence interest on such funds is partially attributable to such investments which are disallowable under section 14A of the Act. 5.3 the learned AO erred in not appreciating the fact that the secured loans were borrowed solely for the purpose

M/S Tejats Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1674/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

Noida units. 4.1 Disallowance under Rule 8D read with Section 14A 5.1 The learned AO erred in making an additional disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs. 98,99,166 on the contention that the appellant has earned exempt income in the nature ... account of diversion of business funds to the investments and hence interest on such funds is partially attributable to such investments which are disallowable under section 14A of the Act. 5.3 the learned AO erred in not appreciating the fact that the secured loans were borrowed solely for the purpose

Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 694/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

Noida units. 4.1 Disallowance under Rule 8D read with Section 14A 5.1 The learned AO erred in making an additional disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs. 98,99,166 on the contention that the appellant has earned exempt income in the nature ... account of diversion of business funds to the investments and hence interest on such funds is partially attributable to such investments which are disallowable under section 14A of the Act. 5.3 the learned AO erred in not appreciating the fact that the secured loans were borrowed solely for the purpose

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 621/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

Noida units. 4.1 Disallowance under Rule 8D read with Section 14A 5.1 The learned AO erred in making an additional disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs. 98,99,166 on the contention that the appellant has earned exempt income in the nature ... account of diversion of business funds to the investments and hence interest on such funds is partially attributable to such investments which are disallowable under section 14A of the Act. 5.3 the learned AO erred in not appreciating the fact that the secured loans were borrowed solely for the purpose