← 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

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

ITA 1547/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

trade and the income arising therefrom are not exempt from tax. Further, dividend/interest income is incidental to holding such securities and hence, disallowance under section 14A of the Act is not warranted. In support of its contention, the assessee, inter-alia, placed reliance upon the decision ... ground that may be necessary at the time of hearing.” 45. Grounds No.1 and 2 raised in Revenue’s appeal pertain to the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2018-19) 31 46. While considering the similar

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mumbai

ITA 1452/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

trade and the income arising therefrom are not exempt from tax. Further, dividend/interest income is incidental to holding such securities and hence, disallowance under section 14A of the Act is not warranted. In support of its contention, the assessee, inter-alia, placed reliance upon the decision ... ground that may be necessary at the time of hearing." 45. Grounds No.1 and 2 raised in Revenue's appeal pertain to the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 46. While considering the similar disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

ITA 1451/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

trade and the income arising therefrom are not exempt from tax. Further, dividend/interest income is incidental to holding such securities and hence, disallowance under section 14A of the Act is not warranted. In support of its contention, the assessee, inter-alia, placed reliance upon the decision ... ground that may be necessary at the time of hearing.” 45. Grounds No.1 and 2 raised in Revenue’s appeal pertain to the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2018-19) 31 46. While considering the similar

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Mumbai

ITA 929/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 801BSection 80H

amount of profits derived from the said undertakings. Expenditure attributable to earning of tax-free income - Section 14A disallowance 4. erred in confirming disallowance under section 14A in respect of expenditure in relation to tax free income. CENVAT on closing stock - Section 145A 5. erred in confirming adjustment

Hindustan Unilever Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the

ITA 1041/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 801BSection 80HSection 8O

amount of profits derived from the said undertakings. Expenditure attributable to earning of tax-free income - Section 14A disallowance 4. erred in confirming disallowance under section 14A in respect of expenditure in relation to tax free income. CENVAT on closing stock - Section 145A 5. erred in confirming adjustment

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Pune vs. Kakade Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2277/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2275 & 2277/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dcit, V Kakade Infrastructure Private Limited,20Th Floor, A Wing, Central Circle-2(2), S Pune. Marathon Futurx, N.M.Joshi Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan: Aadck5852G Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Jay Bhansali (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 A.Y.2014-15 Both Dated 30.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 28.03.2016 & 30.12.2016 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

time of hearing.” Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessing Officer made disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(ii) of Rs.4,03,41,761/-. Ld.CIT(A) allowed assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Pune vs. Kakade Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2275/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2275 & 2277/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dcit, V Kakade Infrastructure Private Limited,20Th Floor, A Wing, Central Circle-2(2), S Pune. Marathon Futurx, N.M.Joshi Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan: Aadck5852G Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Jay Bhansali (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 A.Y.2014-15 Both Dated 30.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 28.03.2016 & 30.12.2016 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

time of hearing.” Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessing Officer made disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(ii) of Rs.4,03,41,761/-. Ld.CIT(A) allowed assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT

Bajaj Finance Limited, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Pune

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

ITA 565/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Bajaj Finance Limited Pcit-3, Pune 3Rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Vs. Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aabcb1518L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41Section 80J

business income to the assessee from the same. Therefore, interest expense debited by the assessee has not been considered for the calculation of disallowance under section 14A because the same has been incurred for the purpose of business." The PCIT therefore agrees that the Assessing Officer has recorded from ... business income to the assessee from the same. He notes that the Assessing Officer, therefore did not consider the calculation of disallowance under section 14A the interest expense debited by the assessee because the same 25 has been incurred for the purpose of business. The PCIT though was unhappy with

Icra Limited, Delhi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10(1), Cr Building, Ip Estate, Delhi

In the result, A.Y.2013-14 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and Assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 2723/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 14ASection 37(1)

moto made by the assessee was accepted since the assessee had considered only dividend yielding investments for the purpose of computation of disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D of the I.T. Rules. 4. Heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. We find merit

Icra Limited, Delhi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10(1), Cr Building, Ip Estate, Delhi

In the result, A.Y.2013-14 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and Assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 2722/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 14ASection 37(1)

moto made by the assessee was accepted since the assessee had considered only dividend yielding investments for the purpose of computation of disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D of the I.T. Rules. 4. Heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. We find merit

Icra Limited, Delhi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10(1), Cr Building, Ip Estate, Delhi

In the result, A.Y.2013-14 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and Assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 2721/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 14ASection 37(1)

moto made by the assessee was accepted since the assessee had considered only dividend yielding investments for the purpose of computation of disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D of the I.T. Rules. 4. Heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. We find merit

Icra Limited, Delhi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10(1), Cr Building, Ip Estate, Delhi

In the result, A.Y.2013-14 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and Assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 2720/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 14ASection 37(1)

moto made by the assessee was accepted since the assessee had considered only dividend yielding investments for the purpose of computation of disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D of the I.T. Rules. 4. Heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. We find merit

Ladderup Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7404/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarladderup Finance Circle 14(1)(1), Limited Mumbai 1St Floor Hallmark Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Business Plaza, Mumbai-400 020 Gurunanak Hospital Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl0882G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rushabh Mehta Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

nature, no further expenditure was incurred for earning exempt income beyond what was already disallowed, Rule 8D was invoked without proper satisfaction, and disallowance under section 14A could not exceed exempt income. With respect to section 36(1)(iii), it was submitted that the advances were for business considerations ... heard had been granted by the Assessing Officer and rejected the challenge to the validity of the assessment proceedings. On the issue of disallowance under section 14A, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer, observing that the assessee had earned exempt income during the year

ACIT, Mumbai vs. K Raheja Corp Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6083/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Sondagar, CA
Section 11SSection 14A

Average Average Investment 1,45,31,43,595 1,45,31,43,595 Disallowance under section 14A @ 1% Disallowance under section 14A @ 1% 1,45,31,436 1,45,31,436 of investments of investments Add: Direct Expenditure Add: Direct Expenditure 740 Disallowance u/s. 14A Disallowance u/s. 14A ... cannot override the provisions of section 14A of the Act and disallowance cannot override the provisions of section 14A of the Act and disallowance under section 14A of th under section 14A of the Act is only warranted when there is actual receipt e Act is only warranted when there

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Penna Cement Industries Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1084/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate Represented by Department : Dr. Narendra Kumar NFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 11/11/2025
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 68Section 80Section 801ASection 80GSection 92C

case of the assessee company was selected for complete scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019, for verifying multi-facet issues, viz. (i). disallowance under section 14A of the Act; (ii). allowability of the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80G in respect of CSR donations; (iii). eligibility ... price (ALP) of the specified domestic transactions and did not propose any adjustment. 4. Thereafter, the AO, after making certain additions/disallowances, viz. (i) disallowance under section 14A r.w rule 8D: Rs. 74,92,000/-; (ii) disallowance of the claim of the assessee company for deduction under section 80G w.r.t

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Penna Cement Industries Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1083/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1083/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Industries आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1084/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hydeabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Industries Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 2

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 68Section 80Section 801ASection 80GSection 92C

case of the assessee company was selected for complete scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019, for verifying multi-facet issues, viz. (i). disallowance under section 14A of the Act; (ii). allowability of the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80G in respect of CSR donations; (iii). eligibility ... price (ALP) of the specified domestic transactions and did not propose any adjustment. 4. Thereafter, the AO, after making certain additions/disallowances, viz. (i) disallowance under section 14A r.w rule 8D: Rs. 74,92,000/-; (ii) disallowance of the claim of the assessee company for deduction under section 80G w.r.t

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Fl Smith Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1763/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

economic adjustments for the differences between the Appellant and its comparable companies during the course of the appeal proceedings. CORPORATE TAX ADJUSTMENTS 8. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D 8.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred ... failed to appreciate that section 14A prescribes disallowance for expenditure incurred against the income which is claimed as exempt. Hence, the disallowance under section 14A against exempt income cannot be higher than the exempt income itself. 9. Rejection of claim of Depreciation on tangible assets pursuant to the merger

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Corporate Circle 1-1, Chennai vs. Fl Smidth Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1731/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short "Ld.Cit(A)") Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The 'Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

economic adjustments for the differences between the Appellant and its comparable companies during the course of the appeal proceedings. CORPORATE TAX ADJUSTMENTS 8. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D 8.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred ... failed to appreciate that section 14A prescribes disallowance for expenditure incurred against the income which is claimed as exempt. Hence, the disallowance under section 14A against exempt income cannot be higher than the exempt income itself. 9. Rejection of claim of Depreciation on tangible assets pursuant to the merger

Assisstant Commisioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Fl Smith Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1682/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

economic adjustments for the differences between the Appellant and its comparable companies during the course of the appeal proceedings. CORPORATE TAX ADJUSTMENTS 8. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D 8.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred ... failed to appreciate that section 14A prescribes disallowance for expenditure incurred against the income which is claimed as exempt. Hence, the disallowance under section 14A against exempt income cannot be higher than the exempt income itself. 9. Rejection of claim of Depreciation on tangible assets pursuant to the merger

Macwear, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6189/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18 Macwear, Dcit, Circle 22(1), Macwear House, First Floor, Room No.322, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Sunmill Compound, Delisle Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Road, Mumbai – 400013. Parel, Pan – Aaafm1927E Mumbai - 400012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. In The Instant Case, The Ao Vide Assessment Order Dated 13.11.2019 Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Has Made An Addition Of Rs.13,01,267/- Being 1% Of The Average Investments Of Rs.13,01,26,690/-, Mainly On The Reason That The Assessee Has Failed To Provide Calculation/Submissions & Also, In The Computation Of Total Income, Has Not Disallowed Any Expenditure Attributable To The Earning Of Exempt Income As Required Under The 2 Macwear Provision Of Section 14A Of The Act. The Ld. Commissioner, On The Aforesaid Reasons, Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee, Affirming The Addition Made By The Ao. Thus, The Assessee Has Preferred The Instant Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

instant appeal. 3. The Assessee on the contrary has submitted that it has duly provided the calculation and/or submissions in respect of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. Further the Assessee has also submitted the audited balance sheet along with annexure no.7, wherefrom it clearly appears that the Assessee ... appropriate to remand the instant case to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for decision afresh, by considering the calculation made qua disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, already filed, which the Assessee undertakes to file again before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Thus, in view of the above