← 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

Asia Investments P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 916/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: ShriH.P. Mahajani, ARFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT-DR
Section 14A

depreciation of INR 29,00,000) by treating the same as directly linked for earning exempt income for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. 4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming ... under: 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act, for short) in respect of investments aggregating to Rs. 198,74,78,114, which were strategic

M/S Dhanashree Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1849/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1849/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Dhanashree Developers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd., 303, Western Edge-1, Western Central Circle-4, Express Highway, Above Metro Mall, New Delhi Borivali East, Mumbai-400066 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd6182F Assessee By : Sh. Tanzil Padvekar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A)-30, New Delhi’S Case No. 41/14-15/1618 Dated 20.01.20116, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Tanzil Padvekar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

were utilized for making investments for tax free income. 6. On the facts and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance under Section 14A in absence of any nexus of expenditure with tax free income. 4. We advert to the assessee’s first and foremost substantive grievance

Yashwantbhai Somabhai Patel, Vadodara vs. Dy. CIT Circle 1 (2), Baroda, Race Cource

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 621/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

claim of unsecured loan and made addition of Rs.59,28,094/- under Section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made disallowance under Section 14A of the Act amounting to Rs.13,393/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before

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

NFAC) vide order dated September 5, 2024 under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") erred in confirming the disallowance under section 14A of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,84,43,732 made by the Learned Asst. Commissioner of Income tax 5(1)(1), Mumbai ... which does not or shall not form part of total. 3.2. The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to restrict the disallowance under section 14A of the Act to Rs. 66,11,815. The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify and add any further grounds of appeal

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the miscellaneous applications and appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1763/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: PendingITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Juducial Member Ma Nos. 72 & 73/Mum/2019 (Ita No. 7595/Mum/2013) (Ita No. 1855/Mum/2015) Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Tata Industries Ltd., The Acit, Range-2(3) 24, Bombay House, Mumbai - 400020 Homi Modi Street, Fort, Vs. Mumbai – 400001 Pan: Aaact4058L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt. Arati Vissanji &For Respondent: Shri Rajkumar R. Makwana, Sr. AR
Section 14A

investment which did not yield any income. However, the various Courts’ and Tribunal held that same are to be excluded while computing disallowance under Section 14A of the Act r.w.Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T Rule 1962. The ITAT at para 16 of the order did not agree with ... computed average value of investment by including share application money and investment on which exempt income earned for the purpose of computing disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The ITAT held that there is no reason that the assessee to seek a revision of its own computation. The ITAT

Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the miscellaneous applications and appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7595/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Juducial Member Ma Nos. 72 & 73/Mum/2019 (Ita No. 7595/Mum/2013) (Ita No. 1855/Mum/2015) Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Tata Industries Ltd., The Acit, Range-2(3) 24, Bombay House, Mumbai - 400020 Homi Modi Street, Fort, Vs. Mumbai – 400001 Pan: Aaact4058L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt. Arati Vissanji &For Respondent: Shri Rajkumar R. Makwana, Sr. AR
Section 14A

investment which did not yield any income. However, the various Courts’ and Tribunal held that same are to be excluded while computing disallowance under Section 14A of the Act r.w.Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T Rule 1962. The ITAT at para 16 of the order did not agree with ... computed average value of investment by including share application money and investment on which exempt income earned for the purpose of computing disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The ITAT held that there is no reason that the assessee to seek a revision of its own computation. The ITAT

ACIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6538/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 14A(2)

assessee had sufficient funds of its own, no borrowings were used for the purpose of any investment and consequently no interest is disallowable under section 14A of the Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in completely ... borrowings and hence investments made prior to August 2006 amounting to Rs.1,391.26 crores ought to be excluded while computing the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. ITA No.6290 & 6538/MUM/2024 M/s. Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Bennet Coleman & Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 6290/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal & Yash PrakashFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 14A(2)

assessee had sufficient funds of its own, no borrowings were used for the purpose of any investment and consequently no interest is disallowable under section 14A of the Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in completely ignoring ... borrowings and hence investments made prior to August 2006 amounting to Rs.1,391.26 crores ought to be excluded while computing the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. Page |2 Sar ITA No.6290 & 6538/MUM/2024 M/s. Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Sbpl Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 685/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.685/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sbpl Infrastructure Vs. Deputy Commissioner Limited Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aaccs9014M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri M.Vijay Kumar,Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 16/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 13.02.2024 & Pertains To A.Y.2014-15. 2. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By 94 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That Shri Manoj Sharma, Chief Financial Officer Of The Appellant Company, Who Was Entrusted With The Job Of Looking

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar,CIT-DR
Section 14A

case of CIT (Central)-1 Vs. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. [2018] 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC), when no exempt income is earned, no disallowance under section 14A r.w.r.8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 can be made. However, the fact remains that the arguments of the assessee that the Assessing Officer

Rallis India Limited, Mumbai vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 8(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4210/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golwala, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT, D/R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai. vs. Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai

ITA 557/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

Book Profits by Extra Depreciation of INR 4,38,18,551/- (ii) Increase in Book Profits by INR 6,38,05,371/- disallowed under Section 14A of the Act by invoking provisions contained in Clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB of the Act (iii) Rejection of Assessee ... accepting of Assessee's claim that the 'Book Profits' could not be increased by INR 6,38,05,371/- (being amount disallowed under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules), by invoking provisions contained in Clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai

ITA 556/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

Book Profits by Extra Depreciation of INR 4,38,18,551/- (ii) Increase in Book Profits by INR 6,38,05,371/- disallowed under Section 14A of the Act by invoking provisions contained in Clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB of the Act (iii) Rejection of Assessee ... accepting of Assessee’s claim that the ‘Book Profits’ could not be increased by INR 6,38,05,371/- (being amount disallowed under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules), by invoking provisions contained in Clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB

Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 1 (1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 502/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18
For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya & Ms. Kaveeta Punit Kaushik Date Conclusion of hearing
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

Book Profits by Extra Depreciation of INR 4,38,18,551/- (ii) Increase in Book Profits by INR 6,38,05,371/- disallowed under Section 14A of the Act by invoking provisions contained in Clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB of the Act (iii) Rejection of Assessee ... accepting of Assessee's claim that the 'Book Profits' could not be increased by INR 6,38,05,371/- (being amount disallowed under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules), by invoking provisions contained in Clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB

Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional -Joint -Deputy-Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- ITO, Delhi

ITA 302/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Fenil Bhatt For theFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya & Ms. Kaveeta Punit Kaushik Date Conclusion of hearing
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

Book Profits by Extra Depreciation of INR 4,38,18,551/- (ii) Increase in Book Profits by INR 6,38,05,371/- disallowed under Section 14A of the Act by invoking provisions contained in Clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB of the Act (iii) Rejection of Assessee ... accepting of Assessee's claim that the 'Book Profits' could not be increased by INR 6,38,05,371/- (being amount disallowed under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules), by invoking provisions contained in Clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB

M/S. Swagat Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Kolkata (Formerly D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), Kolkata)

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

ITA 1850/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1850/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S. Swagat Trexim Pvt. Limited,..…………Appellant 32/7, Sahapur Colony, Kolkata-700053 [Pan:Aaecs1238F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………...Respondent Ward-3(1), Kolkata, [Formerly Dcit, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata] Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tulsian, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 11, 2024 O R D E R

Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

other grievance of the assessee is that the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) were wrong in making disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D while computing Book Profit of the assessee under section 115JB of the Act. 7. I have heard both the sides ... Delhi High Court in the case of Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. -vs.- DCIT (2022) 145 taxman.com 641 (Del.), wherein it was held that disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D is to be in relation to income which does not form part of total income and this

Arkis Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 5113/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SMT BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Pradnya Gholap (Sr. DR)
Section 115JSection 14Section 142Section 143Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 41(1)

assessee claimed interest expenses in the P&L account of Rs.22, 62, 510/-. 2.3. The Ld. AO called upon assessee to justify why disallowance under section 14A should not be made. The assessee in response submitted that, neither any direct expenses were incurred nor any loan was taken for earning ... exempt income, and therefore, there was no justification to make any disallowance under section 14A of the act in the hands of the assessee. 2.4. The Ld.AO after considering the submissions of the assessee disallowed under Rule 8D(2)(ii) all finance cost claimed amounting to Rs.22,62,510/-, debited

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. T.V. Today Network Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1820/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarita Nos. 1819 & 1820/Del/2024 (Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Acit Vs. T.V. Today Network Ltd. Room No.192A, First Floor F-26, First Floor, Cr Building, Ip Estate, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 002 New Delhi – 110 001 Pan : Aabct 0424 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Amit Katock, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43BSection 8D

case was selected for scrutiny assessment during the course of assessment proceedings. Learned AO made the following additions:  Disallowance under section 14A of the Act – Rs.1,43,73,610/-  Addition on account of Rental Income – Rs.10,43,144/-  Disallowance of Misc. Foreign Expenses – Rs.1,19,33,625/-  Disallowance of Advertisement ... department of Revenue submitted that learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,43,73,610/- on account of disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Learned CIT(A) also erred in directing the AO for making verification

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. T.V. Today Network Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1819/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarita Nos. 1819 & 1820/Del/2024 (Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Acit Vs. T.V. Today Network Ltd. Room No.192A, First Floor F-26, First Floor, Cr Building, Ip Estate, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 002 New Delhi – 110 001 Pan : Aabct 0424 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Amit Katock, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43BSection 8D

case was selected for scrutiny assessment during the course of assessment proceedings. Learned AO made the following additions:  Disallowance under section 14A of the Act – Rs.1,43,73,610/-  Addition on account of Rental Income – Rs.10,43,144/-  Disallowance of Misc. Foreign Expenses – Rs.1,19,33,625/-  Disallowance of Advertisement ... department of Revenue submitted that learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,43,73,610/- on account of disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Learned CIT(A) also erred in directing the AO for making verification

Amjay Medimax India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the levy of costs as specified above

ITA 731/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.731/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Amjay Medimax India The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Pvt.Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1) V/S. 4Th Floor, Medi Max House Ahmedabad - 380 015 Opp.Karnavati Hospital Ellisbridge Ahmedabad – 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 8241 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23/02/2024, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Arose Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Amjay Medimax India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 68

made the following additions and disallowances: • Addition under section 68 of the Act (unexplained cash credits): Rs.2,34,90,000/-. • Disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D: Rs.25,41,178/-. Short-term capital loss treated as a colourable device: Rs.33,60,000/-. • Disallowance under section 37(1): Rs.4

Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 593/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 115Section 115JSection 237Section 80J

rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that that issue of disallowance under section 14A of the Act is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of this Tribunal in own case of the assessee