← 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

Shah Coal Private Limited, Centre Point, Santacruz West vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Fourteen (Three) (Two), Mumbai

In the result, we allow both the appeal s of the assessee and direct the ld AO to recompute disallowance as indicated above

ITA 2802/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Radheshyam Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya, DR
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

During the year assessee received dividend income of ₹53,873/-, as it has investment in mutual fund but assessee has not made any disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. Therefore, the learned Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain as to why the disallowance under Section 14A ... filed return of income on 28th October, 2017, declaring total income of ₹14,25,45,560/-, wherein the assessment order passed resulted into disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of ₹11,09,384/, in the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 18th December

Shah Coal Private Limited, Center Point, Santacruz West vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Fourteen (Three)(Two), Mumbai

In the result, we allow both the appeal s of the assessee and direct the ld AO to recompute disallowance as indicated above

ITA 2801/MUM/2023[17-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Radheshyam Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya, DR
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

During the year assessee received dividend income of ₹53,873/-, as it has investment in mutual fund but assessee has not made any disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. Therefore, the learned Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain as to why the disallowance under Section 14A ... filed return of income on 28th October, 2017, declaring total income of ₹14,25,45,560/-, wherein the assessment order passed resulted into disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of ₹11,09,384/, in the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 18th December

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 6589/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A(9)Section 80HSection 92C

business. 11. 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 for the purpose of computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. In doing so, he erred in applying Rule 8D of Income ... issue in appeal before the 50. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) asked the Appellant to show cause why disallowance under Section 14A of the Act should not be computed by applying provisions contained in Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In response the Appellant

DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Ufo Moviez India Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3728/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Circle-27(1), 1-B, Sagar Apartments, New Delhi 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 1-B, Sagar Apartments, Circle-27(1), 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E (Appellants) (Respondents) Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. & Shri Yishu Goel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 Order

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 15JSection 36(1)(va)

against the returned income of Rs. 33,92,43,216 under normal provisions of the Act. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income-tax Rules. 1962 ('Rules') 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred ... upholding the additional disallowance under section 14A of the Act made by the learned AO by directly invoking Rule 8D of the Rules, ITA No.1943/Del/2018 9 and without recording his satisfaction as to why the suo moto disallowance of Rs. 2,64,572 made by the Appellant was unreasonable

Ufo Moviez India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.CIT-27(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1942/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Circle-27(1), 1-B, Sagar Apartments, New Delhi 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 1-B, Sagar Apartments, Circle-27(1), 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E (Appellants) (Respondents) Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. & Shri Yishu Goel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 Order

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 15JSection 36(1)(va)

against the returned income of Rs. 33,92,43,216 under normal provisions of the Act. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income-tax Rules. 1962 ('Rules') 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred ... upholding the additional disallowance under section 14A of the Act made by the learned AO by directly invoking Rule 8D of the Rules, ITA No.1943/Del/2018 9 and without recording his satisfaction as to why the suo moto disallowance of Rs. 2,64,572 made by the Appellant was unreasonable

M/S High Range Foods Private Ltd, Kochi vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(3), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 22/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dashigh Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 28/3030, Cheruparambath Road Corporate Ward – 1(3) Vs. Kadavanthra, Kochi 682020 Kochi [Pan:Aaach6076L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)], Disallowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 09.01.2023, Is Delayed By 135 Days. The Condonation Petition Accompanying The Appeal, Which Is Supported By A Sworn Affidavit Dated 29.12.2022 By Shri Simon John, The Director & Principal Officer Of The Assessee- Company, Explains The Delay In Terms Of Non-Conveyance Of The Impugned Order Inasmuch As It’S Uploading On The Itba Was Not Accompanied By A Simultaneous Uploading On The Mobile Application As Well As A Real Time Alert Through Sms, As Required By Clause 11 Of The National Faceless Appeal Scheme (Nfas), So That The Order Cannot Be Regarded As Served On 28.6.2022, The Date Of The Impugned Order And

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

decide accordingly. 7. The only other issue arising in the instant appeal, projected per Gds. 4-6, is qua disallowance under section 14A of the Act, effected by the AO at Rs. 44,361, being Rs.34,397 and Rs.10,324 in respect of interest and indirect expenditure under rule

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Limited (Formerly Known As Lodha Developers Pvt Ltd.) (Successor of M/S Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.2385/Mum/2022 filed by the learned

ITA 2385/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Macrotech Developers Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Income (Formerly Known As Lodha Tax, Developers Pvt. Ltd.)(Successor Of Central Circle-7(3), M/S Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Room No,655, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Pvt. Ltd.) 412, 4Th Floor, 17 G, Vardhman M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Market, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort Mumbai 400001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl1490J

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

year, the assessee has not earned any exempt income, however, as there was an investment, so assessee was asked to show why no disallowance under Section 14A of the Act is made. Assessee’s submission was that for interest disallowance its own funds are far in excess of investment made ... ordinate Bench allowing the claim of the assessee. Therefore, he deleted the disallowance of interest expenditure. iii. With respect to the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cham Invest Ltd. vs. CIT 61 taxmann.com 118 (Delhi), wherein

Dy.CIT -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kec International Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1883/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147(3)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92F

disallowed. 09. The learned Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee has earned dividend of ₹70,23,31,373/- and no disallowance under Section 14A of the Act was offered. The assessee submitted that assessee has received dividend income from foreign companies and therefore, same are not exempt ... deleted. The learned CIT (A) followed the decision of the co- ordinate Bench in assessee‟s own case. iv. With respect to the disallowance under Section 14A, under Section 115JB of the Act was conformed. 012. Accordingly, the appellate order was passed, where both the parties are aggrieved

Kec International Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1852/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147(3)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92F

disallowed. 09. The learned Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee has earned dividend of ₹70,23,31,373/- and no disallowance under Section 14A of the Act was offered. The assessee submitted that assessee has received dividend income from foreign companies and therefore, same are not exempt ... deleted. The learned CIT (A) followed the decision of the co- ordinate Bench in assessee‟s own case. iv. With respect to the disallowance under Section 14A, under Section 115JB of the Act was conformed. 012. Accordingly, the appellate order was passed, where both the parties are aggrieved

DCIT RG. - 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4607/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

Malhotra for the revenue and Mr. Pardiwalla for the assessee, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal as regards disallowance under section 14A and restricting the same to Rs. 1 lac was justified in view of the material before the Tribunal. Furthermore, having considered the fact

M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4562/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

Malhotra for the revenue and Mr. Pardiwalla for the assessee, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal as regards disallowance under section 14A and restricting the same to Rs. 1 lac was justified in view of the material before the Tribunal. Furthermore, having considered the fact

Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3642/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

Malhotra for the revenue and Mr. Pardiwalla for the assessee, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal as regards disallowance under section 14A and restricting the same to Rs. 1 lac was justified in view of the material before the Tribunal. Furthermore, having considered the fact

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3385/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

Malhotra for the revenue and Mr. Pardiwalla for the assessee, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal as regards disallowance under section 14A and restricting the same to Rs. 1 lac was justified in view of the material before the Tribunal. Furthermore, having considered the fact

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3384/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

Malhotra for the revenue and Mr. Pardiwalla for the assessee, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal as regards disallowance under section 14A and restricting the same to Rs. 1 lac was justified in view of the material before the Tribunal. Furthermore, having considered the fact

Morgan Stanley India Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Neac, Delhi

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

ITA 594/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 340 & 7550/Mum/2019 Ita Nos. 594 & 2435/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2018-19) Morgan Stanley India Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Company Private Limited National E-Assessment 18F, B Wing, Tower-2, Centre, Delhi Oneworld Centre, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai – 400 013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacj4998F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Sunil Motilala Respondent By : Manoj Kumar & Jancy Elizabeth Rani Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

For Appellant: Sunil MotilalaFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar &
Section 154

stating that the assessee failed to produce relevant documents like contract notes in respect of error trades. Ground 3: Disallowance under section 14A of the Act 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO, based on the directions of Honourable DRP, erred in disallowing Rs.2 ... 14A of the Act 2.2 Without prejudice to the above, in applying Rule BD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) for computing disallowance under section 14A of the Act without recording sufficient reasons for not being satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the Assessee in respect

Morgan Stanley India Company Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2435/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 340 & 7550/Mum/2019 Ita Nos. 594 & 2435/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2018-19) Morgan Stanley India Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Company Private Limited National E-Assessment 18F, B Wing, Tower-2, Centre, Delhi Oneworld Centre, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai – 400 013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacj4998F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Sunil Motilala Respondent By : Manoj Kumar & Jancy Elizabeth Rani Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

For Appellant: Sunil MotilalaFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar &
Section 154

stating that the assessee failed to produce relevant documents like contract notes in respect of error trades. Ground 3: Disallowance under section 14A of the Act 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO, based on the directions of Honourable DRP, erred in disallowing Rs.2 ... 14A of the Act 2.2 Without prejudice to the above, in applying Rule BD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) for computing disallowance under section 14A of the Act without recording sufficient reasons for not being satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the Assessee in respect

Morgan Stanley India Co. P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1009/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 340 & 7550/Mum/2019 Ita Nos. 594 & 2435/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2018-19) Morgan Stanley India Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Company Private Limited National E-Assessment 18F, B Wing, Tower-2, Centre, Delhi Oneworld Centre, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai – 400 013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacj4998F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Sunil Motilala Respondent By : Manoj Kumar & Jancy Elizabeth Rani Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

For Appellant: Sunil MotilalaFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar &
Section 154

stating that the assessee failed to produce relevant documents like contract notes in respect of error trades. Ground 3: Disallowance under section 14A of the Act 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO, based on the directions of Honourable DRP, erred in disallowing Rs.2 ... 14A of the Act 2.2 Without prejudice to the above, in applying Rule BD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) for computing disallowance under section 14A of the Act without recording sufficient reasons for not being satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the Assessee in respect

Morgan Stanley India Company Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Range 4 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7550/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 340 & 7550/Mum/2019 Ita Nos. 594 & 2435/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2018-19) Morgan Stanley India Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Company Private Limited National E-Assessment 18F, B Wing, Tower-2, Centre, Delhi Oneworld Centre, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai – 400 013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacj4998F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Sunil Motilala Respondent By : Manoj Kumar & Jancy Elizabeth Rani Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

For Appellant: Sunil MotilalaFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar &
Section 154

stating that the assessee failed to produce relevant documents like contract notes in respect of error trades. Ground 3: Disallowance under section 14A of the Act 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO, based on the directions of Honourable DRP, erred in disallowing Rs.2 ... 14A of the Act 2.2 Without prejudice to the above, in applying Rule BD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) for computing disallowance under section 14A of the Act without recording sufficient reasons for not being satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the Assessee in respect

Morgan Stanley India Company Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - RG. 4(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 340/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 340 & 7550/Mum/2019 Ita Nos. 594 & 2435/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2018-19) Morgan Stanley India Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Company Private Limited National E-Assessment 18F, B Wing, Tower-2, Centre, Delhi Oneworld Centre, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai – 400 013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacj4998F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Sunil Motilala Respondent By : Manoj Kumar & Jancy Elizabeth Rani Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

For Appellant: Sunil MotilalaFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar &
Section 154

stating that the assessee failed to produce relevant documents like contract notes in respect of error trades. Ground 3: Disallowance under section 14A of the Act 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO, based on the directions of Honourable DRP, erred in disallowing Rs.2 ... 14A of the Act 2.2 Without prejudice to the above, in applying Rule BD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) for computing disallowance under section 14A of the Act without recording sufficient reasons for not being satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the Assessee in respect

Indus Towers Ltd, Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Petition of the assessee is hereby dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1051/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 115Section 14ASection 251(2)

company in the return of income. SA No. 386/Del/2023 Indus Towers Ltd. 1.1 That the CIT(A) assessing officer erred in upholding/ making disallowance under section 14A without appreciating that pre-conditions for making the disallowance prescribed under sub-sections (2)/(3) of section 14A of the Act were ... exempt income, was recorded by the assessing officer. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in enhancing the disallowance under section 14A of the Act by Rs.2,84,000 being 20% of employee(s) cost suo-motu disallowed by the appellant, alleging the same