← 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

Nucleus Software Exports Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-18(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9679/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N. K. Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14A

that details of investments were given which would give exempt income and which would be involved in calculation of disallowance under section 14A. The assessee was asked to explain why disallowance under section 14A should not be made. In response it was submitted that an amount ... already been disallowed under section 14A. From the computation submitted the AO noted that the assessee had on its own accepted that expense of Rs. 17,57,748/- had been incurred directly in relation to investments yielding exempt income under rule 8D (2)(i) Income Tax Rules

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. India Bulls Power Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed in regard to the first question

ITA 2013/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12 Acit, Vs. India Bulls Power Ltd. (Now Known Circle-21(1), As Rattan India Power Ltd.) New Delhi. 5Th Floor, Tower-B, Worldmark-1, Aerocity, New Delhi- 110 037 Pan Aalcs2063D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

made suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 8,89,763/- under section 14A of the Act. The assessee’s working of disallowance under section 14A was not acceptable to the Ld. AO. After requiring the assessee to show cause why provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D be not applied ... accordingly. 2.2 Subsequently, the Ld. AO passed rectificatory order under section 154 of the Act on 13.06.2014 and recalculated the disallowance under section 14A at Rs. 2,23,87,932/- as under:- 2 Working of expenses attributable to exempt income as per Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules

M/S Piramal Enterprises Limiited, Mumbsi vs. Dy CIT(Appeal)-Range-8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 727/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Piramal Enterprises Ltd., Dy. Cit, Mumbai-8(1)(2), Or Piramal Tower, Agastya National Facelss Assessment Vs. Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Centre, Delhi, Kamani Junction, Kurla Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, (West), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400070. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacn 4538 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Ronak Doshi : Revenue By Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Cit-Dr & Mr. Samuel Pitta, Dr : Date Of Hearing 17/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Ronak Doshi
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)

GROUND NO. I AND GROUND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. I AND GROUND NO. II ABOVE, NO. II ABOVE, GROUND NO. III: DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A GROUND NO. III: DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A GROUND NO. III: DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT r.w.r. 8D of THE INCOME ... case and in law, 1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in making disallowance under section 14A the Ld. AO erred in making disallowance under section 14A the Ld. AO erred in making disallowance under section 14A

Essar Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2195/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi D Hande
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

year under consideration, the Appellant received exempt income of INR ITA. No. 2195/Mum/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 9,136/- The Assessing Officer made disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules amounting to INR 7,11,32,189/- which was upheld by the DRP. The Appellant ... vide letter dated 03.05.2018, raised additional ground of appeal challenging the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. We have heard both sides on admitting the additional grounds and are of the view that the additional grounds raised by the Appellant do not require examination of any facts not already

M/S. Aspire Systems India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Adl. CIT, Company Range-1, Chennai

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 785/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2000/Chny/2019 & 762/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2011-12 The Deputy/Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aspire Systems India Income Tax, Private Limited, Old. No. 4, New No. 7, Corporate Circle 1(1), Ii Trust Link Road, Mandaveli, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aacca4543M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 785/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Aspire Systems India Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Private Limited, Old. No. 4, New No. Income Tax, 7, Ii Trust Link Road, Mandaveli, Company Range-1, Chennai 600 028. Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit Assessee By : Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well Are Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 14ASection 40

assessment year 2014-14, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the interest expenditure and re-compute the disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 5. Against the appellate orders for the assessment year 2014-15 and 2011-12, the Department preferred further appeals before the Tribunal ... issue under appeals may be remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. With regard to the disallowance under section 14A of the Act for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. DR has submitted that by considering the fresh evidence

JCIT (OSD), Corporate Circle - 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Aspire Systems India Pvt. Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 762/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2000/Chny/2019 & 762/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2011-12 The Deputy/Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aspire Systems India Income Tax, Private Limited, Old. No. 4, New No. 7, Corporate Circle 1(1), Ii Trust Link Road, Mandaveli, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aacca4543M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 785/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Aspire Systems India Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Private Limited, Old. No. 4, New No. Income Tax, 7, Ii Trust Link Road, Mandaveli, Company Range-1, Chennai 600 028. Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit Assessee By : Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well Are Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 14ASection 40

assessment year 2014-14, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the interest expenditure and re-compute the disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 5. Against the appellate orders for the assessment year 2014-15 and 2011-12, the Department preferred further appeals before the Tribunal ... issue under appeals may be remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. With regard to the disallowance under section 14A of the Act for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. DR has submitted that by considering the fresh evidence

DCIT, Chennai vs. Aspire Systems (India) P. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2000/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2000/Chny/2019 & 762/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2011-12 The Deputy/Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aspire Systems India Income Tax, Private Limited, Old. No. 4, New No. 7, Corporate Circle 1(1), Ii Trust Link Road, Mandaveli, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aacca4543M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 785/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Aspire Systems India Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Private Limited, Old. No. 4, New No. Income Tax, 7, Ii Trust Link Road, Mandaveli, Company Range-1, Chennai 600 028. Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit Assessee By : Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well Are Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 14ASection 40

assessment year 2014-14, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the interest expenditure and re-compute the disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 5. Against the appellate orders for the assessment year 2014-15 and 2011-12, the Department preferred further appeals before the Tribunal ... issue under appeals may be remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. With regard to the disallowance under section 14A of the Act for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. DR has submitted that by considering the fresh evidence

DCIT, Chennai vs. Siva Ventures Ltd., Chennai

The appeal of the revenue stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1417/CHNY/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L.Kapthuama (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)

existent company and hence, the order passed by the learned AO is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Corporate Tax Adjustment Disallowance under section 14A 3. The Learned CIT(A) and Learned AO have erred in law and on facts by disallowing INK 7,76,81,139 under ... interest expenditure in its business without establishing any nexus between the expenditure and exempt income, and without establishing any proximate cause for disallowance under section 14A of the Act and merely on the basis of presumptions. 11. The Learned CIT(A) and Learned AO have erred

Siva Industries and Holdings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal of the revenue stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1390/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L.Kapthuama (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)

existent company and hence, the order passed by the learned AO is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Corporate Tax Adjustment Disallowance under section 14A 3. The Learned CIT(A) and Learned AO have erred in law and on facts by disallowing INK 7,76,81,139 under ... interest expenditure in its business without establishing any nexus between the expenditure and exempt income, and without establishing any proximate cause for disallowance under section 14A of the Act and merely on the basis of presumptions. 11. The Learned CIT(A) and Learned AO have erred

Shyamm Mariwala, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward -6(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2494/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shyamm Mariwala, Ito Ward-6(3)(3), 216, Vasan Udyog Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400013. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Advpm 4940 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Subhash Chhajed, Ar : Revenue By Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Subhash Chhajed, AR
Section 14ASection 68

Scheduled Bank and the issue there the assessee was a Scheduled Bank and the issue therein also pertained to disallowance under pertained to disallowance under Section 14A. In this case, the . In this case, the Bombay High Court even while remanding the case back to Tribunal Bombay High Court even ... funds larger than the investments made in tax- free secur free securities then in such cases, disallowance under in such cases, disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made. cannot be made.” 7.1 In view of the above discussion, since the assessee has In view of the above discussion, since

Saigal Seatrade, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21 (3), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7404/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

preferred by the Appellant on this issue, the CIT(A) granted relief to the Appellant by directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the by taking into consideration only those investments which ... contended on behalf of the Appellant that amount of interest paid to partners on capital should not be taken into consideration while computing disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. We note that the CIT(A) had rejected the aforesaid contention of the Appellant by relying upon the decision

Triway Container Freight Station P Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 3(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 255/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.254 & 255/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Triway Container Freight Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Station P. Ltd., No. 14, Jaffer Street, Corporate Ward 3(2), Harbour, Chennai 600 001. Chennai – 34. [Pan:Aabct8013A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai Dated 06.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 14-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2013 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Admitting Nil Income After Claiming Deduction Under Section 80Ia(4) Of The Income

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

whereas, the investment in the group concerns amount to ₹.1,10,00,000/- and therefore, no disallowance under section 14A of the Act is warranted. It was also submitted that the paid up share capital was ₹.7.50 crores and free reserves are ₹.43.22 crores totalling to ₹.50.82 crores which

Triway Container Freight Station P Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 3(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.254 & 255/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Triway Container Freight Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Station P. Ltd., No. 14, Jaffer Street, Corporate Ward 3(2), Harbour, Chennai 600 001. Chennai – 34. [Pan:Aabct8013A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai Dated 06.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 14-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2013 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Admitting Nil Income After Claiming Deduction Under Section 80Ia(4) Of The Income

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

whereas, the investment in the group concerns amount to ₹.1,10,00,000/- and therefore, no disallowance under section 14A of the Act is warranted. It was also submitted that the paid up share capital was ₹.7.50 crores and free reserves are ₹.43.22 crores totalling to ₹.50.82 crores which

M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO by the asssessee are dismissed and the asseessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7278/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 7278/Mum/2017 (A.Y: 2010-11) & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 (2010-11) (Arising Out Of Ita No. 29/Mum/2018) Mercator Ltd Vs. Dcit 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Range 5(2) B Wing, Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Mumbai- 400021. Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Dy. Cit Vs. Mercator Lines Ltd Range 5(2)(2), Rno.571 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Aayakar Bhavan, Mk B Wing, Nariman Point Road, Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai - 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Nikhil Tiwari.Ar Revenue By : Mr.Krishnakumarmishra.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: 29/Mum/2018 & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai. The Cross Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A))-57, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act & The Assessee Has Filed The Cross Objection(Co) In The Revenue Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Nikhil Tiwari.ARFor Respondent: Mr.KrishnaKumarMishra.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

guarantee given by the Appellant. Corporate tax additions On facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A): 25. erred in upholding disallowance under section 14A of the Act, without appreciating that no addition under section 14A of the Act can be made to the income of the Appellant ... since the Appellant is covered under the TTS under the Act; 26. Without prejudice to the above, erred in upholding the disallowance under section 14A of the Act of Rs 2,54,56,000 as against Rs 1,36,34,299 computed by the Appellant; Levy of Interest under section

Jsw Holdings Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for assessment year 2010 – 11 and appeal for assessment year 2013 – 14 is partly allowed

ITA 2535/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya, DR
Section 14Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 254

held that as the ITAT has set aside the order to consider the ground of strategic investment for working out disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, the above ground has no longer need to be followed in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case ... from A.Y. 2008-09 there is a change in the provisions of the Act and Rule 8D has been introduced to compute the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, therefore, disallowance made by the assessee based on disallowance accepted by the learned Assessing Officer

Jsw Holdings Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for assessment year 2010 – 11 and appeal for assessment year 2013 – 14 is partly allowed

ITA 2534/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya, DR
Section 14Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 254

held that as the ITAT has set aside the order to consider the ground of strategic investment for working out disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, the above ground has no longer need to be followed in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case ... from A.Y. 2008-09 there is a change in the provisions of the Act and Rule 8D has been introduced to compute the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, therefore, disallowance made by the assessee based on disallowance accepted by the learned Assessing Officer

M/S. About U Fashions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 2150/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 14ASection 68

Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has held investment of Rs. 3.10 crores as on 31.3.2014 and the assessee did not make any disallowance under section 14A of the Act. When questioned, the assessee submitted that it did not earn any exempt income and therefore disallowance under section 14A ... admitted fact that the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the year under consideration. In the absence of exempt income, disallowance under section 14A cannot be made as per the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. IL&FS Energy Development

Asst CIT Cir 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Co.P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1794/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Co No. 145/Mum/2016 (Arising In Ita No. 1794/Mum/2016 For A.Y. 11-12)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 253Section 80G

Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the learned AO], in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel-III, Mumbai (DRP). Ground 1: 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 ... 14A of the Act. 2.2 Without prejudice to the above, in applying Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) for computing disallowance under section 14A of the Act without recording sufficient reasons for CO No.145/Mum/2016 ITA No.1794 & 1715/Mum/2016 Morgan Stanley India Company

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

ITA 1715/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Co No. 145/Mum/2016 (Arising In Ita No. 1794/Mum/2016 For A.Y. 11-12)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 253Section 80G

Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the learned AO], in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel-III, Mumbai (DRP). Ground 1: 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 ... 14A of the Act. 2.2 Without prejudice to the above, in applying Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) for computing disallowance under section 14A of the Act without recording sufficient reasons for CO No.145/Mum/2016 ITA No.1794 & 1715/Mum/2016 Morgan Stanley India Company

M/S. Jk Investors (Bombay ) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2115/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153C

Rules. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 30.03.2014, passed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Act computed disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D at INR 2,84,01,670/- consisting of disallowance of INR 1,34,07,685/- made under Rule ... deleted. Ground No. 3 (Additional Ground) On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, disallowance under Section 14A rwr 8D(2)(iii) ought to have considered only those investment which has yielded exempt income in light of Special Bench decision of Delhi Tribunal in case