← 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

Black Rock Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 438/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The issue raised by Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax in respect of disallowance under Section 14A r.w.r. 8D has been thoroughly verified by the A.O. considering the decision in the appellant own case in earlier assessment years. Assessment Year ... Rs.25,00,00,000/- (same closing and opening balance) in shares and the assessee earned exempt income of Rs.2,11,807/-. However, the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was made during the current Assessment Year to the extent of exempt income i.e. Rs.2,11,807/- and, therefore

Vishal Balvantrai Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad -1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 226/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.226/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vishal Balvantrai Agarwal The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 249 New Cloth Market Ahmedabad-1 V/S. O/S. Raipur Gate Ahmedabad – 380 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adbpa 4462 G (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Divyakant Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 57

should have been disallowed and added back to the assessee’s income. Vishal Balvantrai Agarwal vs. The Pr.CIT Asst. Year : 2018-19 (ii) Disallowance Under Section 14A read with Rule 8D: The PCIT observed that the assessee earned exempt income of Rs. 1,97,28,100/- from partnership firms under ... Section 10(2A) but did not make any disallowance under Section 14A. According to the PCIT, an amount equal to 1% of the investment (Rs. 34,54,952/-) should have been disallowed under Section 14A. The PCIT held that the AO failed to expand the scope of limited scrutiny

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Megha Engineering and Infrastructures Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1499/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S.Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecm7627A

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 80I

mutual funds, whereas the AO has disallowed expenditure relatable to exempt income for Rs.7,80,98,559/-. The ld.CIT(A) restricted the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act to the extent of exempt income earned by the appellant. In our considered view, the reasons given by the ld.CIT ... restrict disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D to the extent of exempt income is supported by number of judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 and also the decision

Silverlake Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 379/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 14ASection 263Section 68

revenue that the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014, dated 11-2-2014 stating that even in the absence of any exempt income disallowance under section 14A had to be made, is binding on the revenue authority, had no merit. [Para 12] ■ No illegality or perversity could be demonstrated by the Revenue

Ace Urban Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. AO, Vijayawada

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

ITA 79/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by determining loss at Rs.8,23,83,236/- after making following disallowances: - a. Disallowance under section 14A on account of expenditure incurred in relation to exempted incomeamounting to Rs.2,02,37,996/-; and b. Disallowance on account of rental expensesamounting ... 14A of the Act. He further submitted that assessee has not earned any exempt income during the impugned assessment year and therefore the disallowance under section 14A shall be deleted. Ld. AR placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

Ace Urban Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 284/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by determining loss at Rs.8,23,83,236/- after making following disallowances: - a. Disallowance under section 14A on account of expenditure incurred in relation to exempted incomeamounting to Rs.2,02,37,996/-; and b. Disallowance on account of rental expensesamounting ... 14A of the Act. He further submitted that assessee has not earned any exempt income during the impugned assessment year and therefore the disallowance under section 14A shall be deleted. Ld. AR placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

Ace Urban Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. AO, NFAC

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

ITA 118/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by determining loss at Rs.8,23,83,236/- after making following disallowances: - a. Disallowance under section 14A on account of expenditure incurred in relation to exempted incomeamounting to Rs.2,02,37,996/-; and b. Disallowance on account of rental expensesamounting ... 14A of the Act. He further submitted that assessee has not earned any exempt income during the impugned assessment year and therefore the disallowance under section 14A shall be deleted. Ld. AR placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

M/S. Salarpuria Homes Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1360/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member Shri Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

revenue that the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014, dated 11-2-2014 stating that even in the absence of any exempt income disallowance under section 14A had to be made, is binding on the revenue authority, had no merit. [Para 12] ■ No illegality or perversity could be demonstrated by the Revenue

Miranda Tools Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1599/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

made disallowance amounting to Rs. 44,96,926/-. 3. On further appeals, the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the disallowance under section 14A of the Act and rejected the contentions of the assessee to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee ... explanation to section 14A. Thus, in view of all the above discussion, it is held that the AO was right in invoking the disallowance u/s section 14A as per the statutory enablement in Rule 8D and therefore, the addition to income u/s 14A is upheld.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee

Miranda Tools Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1598/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

made disallowance amounting to Rs. 44,96,926/-. 3. On further appeals, the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the disallowance under section 14A of the Act and rejected the contentions of the assessee to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee ... explanation to section 14A. Thus, in view of all the above discussion, it is held that the AO was right in invoking the disallowance u/s section 14A as per the statutory enablement in Rule 8D and therefore, the addition to income u/s 14A is upheld.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee

DCIT, Circle, Panchkula vs. M/S Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Panchkula

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 193/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

For Appellant: Shri Harish Nayyar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 14A

Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Panchkula 2 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is right in law in holding that disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was not called for as the Assessee has not earned ... nature / common pool and the interest paid by the Assessee is also an interest on the investments made, resultantly the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not made out, affirmed by the Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of Avon Cycles

New India Retailing & Investment Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1285/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 14A

revenue that the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014, dated 11-2-2014 stating that even in the absence of any exempt income disallowance under section 14A had to be made, is binding on the revenue authority, had no merit. [Para 12] ■ No illegality or perversity could be demonstrated by the Revenue ... issue in favour of the assessee. The relevant extract is as under: “FACTS III ■ In the assessment year 2004-05 the AO made disallowance under section 14A in terms of amended provisions of section 14A. ■ The Tribunal deleted said disallowance. ■ On revenue’s appeal: HELD III ■ The Tribunal took note

Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Capital First Limited Now Merged With Idfc First Bank Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1673/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1673/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Capital First Limited Now Merged With Income Tax, Idfc First Bank Limited, Krm Tower, 7Th Floor, No. 1, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai 600 034. Chetpet, Chennai 600 031. [Pan:Aacck6863C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 21 Days. The Appellant-Revenue Filed An Affidavit Stating Reasons For The Said Delay. On Perusal Of The Same & Upon Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That The 2

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Ved, C.A
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

wherein, the 4 I.T.A. No.1673/Chny/24 assessee provided the details and the Assessing Officer proceeded to apply Rule 8D(2)(ii) and determined the disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), without considering the effect of Rule 8D(2), which came into force w.e.f. 01.06.2016, held that

DCIT 15-1-2, Mumbai vs. Hcc Concessions Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue bearing ITAs No

ITA 2941/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

which were exempt from tax. The ld. AO was, therefore, of the opinion that the expenditure incurred for those investments should be disallowed under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rule. When showcause notice was issued, the asessee explained that the investment in subsidiary ... Attributable indirect interest expenses 6,09,05,201 [A*B/C] 3 ½% of the average value of investment 2,97,38,946 Disallowance under Section 14A (1+2+3) 9,06,44,147 Accordingly, the disallowance / addition worked out by the ld.AO in different assessment years was as below: - HCC Infrastructure

DCIT 15-1-2, Mumbai vs. Hcc Concessions Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue bearing ITAs No

ITA 2940/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

which were exempt from tax. The ld. AO was, therefore, of the opinion that the expenditure incurred for those investments should be disallowed under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rule. When showcause notice was issued, the asessee explained that the investment in subsidiary ... Attributable indirect interest expenses 6,09,05,201 [A*B/C] 3 ½% of the average value of investment 2,97,38,946 Disallowance under Section 14A (1+2+3) 9,06,44,147 Accordingly, the disallowance / addition worked out by the ld.AO in different assessment years was as below: - HCC Infrastructure

DCIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hcc Concessions Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue bearing ITAs No

ITA 2690/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

which were exempt from tax. The ld. AO was, therefore, of the opinion that the expenditure incurred for those investments should be disallowed under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rule. When showcause notice was issued, the asessee explained that the investment in subsidiary ... Attributable indirect interest expenses 6,09,05,201 [A*B/C] 3 ½% of the average value of investment 2,97,38,946 Disallowance under Section 14A (1+2+3) 9,06,44,147 Accordingly, the disallowance / addition worked out by the ld.AO in different assessment years was as below: - HCC Infrastructure

DCIT Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hcc Concessions Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue bearing ITAs No

ITA 2578/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

which were exempt from tax. The ld. AO was, therefore, of the opinion that the expenditure incurred for those investments should be disallowed under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rule. When showcause notice was issued, the asessee explained that the investment in subsidiary ... Attributable indirect interest expenses 6,09,05,201 [A*B/C] 3 ½% of the average value of investment 2,97,38,946 Disallowance under Section 14A (1+2+3) 9,06,44,147 Accordingly, the disallowance / addition worked out by the ld.AO in different assessment years was as below: - HCC Infrastructure

Artline Financial Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 14(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1297/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 14Section 14ASection 37

under: ………………………………………………. ………………………………………………. 6.3.2 In the memorandum explaining the provision of Finance Act 2022, it has been explained as under: “Clarification in respect of disallowance under section 14A in absence of any exempt income during an assessment year: Section 14A of the Act provides that no deduction shall be allowed in respect ... income as per the provisions of the Act (exempt income). 2. Over the years, disputes have arisen in respect of the issue whether disallowance under section 14A of the Act can be made in cases where no exempt income has accrued, arisen or received by the assessee during an assessment

DCIT CC 1(1), Mumbai vs. Edel Finance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed, and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 3025/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 94(7)

Rs.72,20,70,412/-. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) accepted the computation of disallowance under section 14A of the Act and further, the ld.CIT(A) calculated the weighted average of the investment both current investment and non-current investment. Finally ... ld.CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance under section 14A of the Act @1% of annual monthly average of both the investments which comes out to Rs.24,43,585/-. The assessee already declared Rs.42,31,712/-. Finally, the ld.CIT(A) restricted the disallowance on account of section 14A read with rule

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh vs. Essix Biosciences Limited, Manimajra

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the

ITA 347/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 14A

Department {CIT(A), ITD)} [NFAC] has erred both on facts and in law in restricting ITA 347/CHD/2024 & C.O. 17/CHD/2024 A.Y.2018-19 3 the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 3,25,000/- despite the fact that assessee has earned the exempt income of Rs. 38,359/- during the year under consideration ... circumstances of the case, the above action of the learned CIT(A), ITD is contrary to the settled position of law that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the above action