“disallowance under section 14A”

National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07

relation to exempt income after “having regard to the accounts of the assessee”, he can determine the amount of such expenditure for making disallowance under section 14A. The satisfaction arrived at by ld. Assessing Officer in terms of the provisions is not just a mere disagreement with the submissions made ... applying the theory of apportionment, the Assessing Officer needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowance under section 14A was not correct. It will be in those cases where the assessee in his return has himself apportioned but the Assessing Officer

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -Circle 7(1) (1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

relation to exempt income after “having regard to the accounts of the assessee”, he can determine the amount of such expenditure for making disallowance under section 14A. The satisfaction arrived at by ld. Assessing Officer in terms of the provisions is not just a mere disagreement with the submissions made

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -Circle 7(1) (1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

relation to exempt income after “having regard to the accounts of the assessee”, he can determine the amount of such expenditure for making disallowance under section 14A. The satisfaction arrived at by ld. Assessing Officer in terms of the provisions is not just a mere disagreement with the submissions made ... applying the theory of apportionment, the Assessing Officer needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowance under section 14A was not correct. It will be in those cases where the assessee in his return has himself apportioned but the Assessing Officer

Bombay Oxygen Investments Limited, Mumbai vs. Commisioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

assessee, disallowance offered by the assessee under section 14A was found not to be reasonable. According to him, suo moto offering of disallowance under section 14A suggests that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in the case and that the disallowance offered by the 4 Bombay Oxygen Investments ... total income under the Act and such satisfaction must be an objective satisfaction. According to the assessee, when it has made suo moto disallowance under section 14A, Assessing Officer cannot proceed to make a disallowance under Rule 8D until he records an objective satisfaction based on the accounts

Jaikishan Bhagchandka, Andheri (West) vs. ACIT 24(2), Mumbai, Parel

In the result, the present appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Acit, 24(2), Jaikishanbhagchandka, Mumbai –400012 503, Highland Park, New Link Road, Lokhandwala Complex Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400053. Pan/Gir No. Adjpb1765F (Applicant) (Respondent)

clear that beforeapplying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to recordsatisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suomoto disallowance under Section 14A was not correct. It will be inthose cases where the assessee in his return has himselfapportioned but the AO was not accepting the said

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Khorakiwala Holdings and Investments Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

order dated 24/07/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi, for assessment year 2017-18 on following grounds of appeal: Grounds in assessee appeal: “1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') of INR 2,73,37,449 in absence of proper satisfaction recorded 2. Disallowance under section ... read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') be restricted upto exempt income of INR 12,89,293 3. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules on all investments” Grounds in revenue appeal: “1. Whether on the facts

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3(4), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan vs. Idbi Bank Ltd, Parth Plazamorbi

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 & 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd., Income Tax -3(4), Apulki Cornermenon, Mumbai Piston Compound, Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No.280/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5959/Mum/2024) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Idbi Bank Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Apulki Cornermenon, Of Income Tax -3(4), Piston Compound, Mumbai Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

supra) where it was clearly held that if non-interest-bearing funds is larger than the investments made in tax- free securities, disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made. In the assessment order, the AO had mentioned the average value of investment Rs.3923.19 crore, however as per assessee, the average ... order of the Tribunal followed its decision in M/s. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. v/s DCIT in ITA No. 3850/Mum/2010 to held that an amount disallowed under section 14A of the Act cannot be added to arrive at book profit for purposes of section 115JB of the Act. The Revenue’s Appeal

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3(4), Mumbai vs. Idbi Bank Ltd, Panchanantala Road

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 & 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax -3(4), Mumbai Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd., Apulki Cornermenon, Piston Compound, Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No.280/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5959/Mum/2024)

supra) where it was clearly held that if non-interest-bearing funds is larger than the investments made in tax- free securities, disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made. In the assessment order, the AO had mentioned the average value of investment Rs.3923.19 crore, however as per assessee, the average ... order of the Tribunal followed its decision in M/s. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. v/s DCIT in ITA No. 3850/Mum/2010 to held that an amount disallowed under section 14A of the Act cannot be added to arrive at book profit for purposes of section 115JB of the Act. The Revenue's Appeal

ACIT 3(4), Mumbai vs. Idbi Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 & 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd., Income Tax -3(4), Apulki Cornermenon, Mumbai Piston Compound, Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No.280/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5959/Mum/2024) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Idbi Bank Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Apulki Cornermenon, Of Income Tax -3(4), Piston Compound, Mumbai Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

supra) where it was clearly held that if non-interest-bearing funds is larger than the investments made in tax- free securities, disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made. In the assessment order, the AO had mentioned the average value of investment Rs.3923.19 crore, however as per assessee, the average ... order of the Tribunal followed its decision in M/s. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. v/s DCIT in ITA No. 3850/Mum/2010 to held that an amount disallowed under section 14A of the Act cannot be added to arrive at book profit for purposes of section 115JB of the Act. The Revenue’s Appeal

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Above on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the learned AO that disallowance under section 14A may be reworked on dividend received from Indian Companies of ₹ 66,68,609/-. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case ... learned AO be directed to delete disallowance under section 14A of ₹ 4,40,85,201/-.” 6. We noted that this issue is also covered by the Tribunals decision in assessee's own case for AY 2008-09. The Tribunal has decided this issue in favour of assessee vide Para