← 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

M/S Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Limited (Erstwhile Edelweiss Agri Value Chain Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2469/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yashwant Kumar Bhaskar, D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 44A

ready perusal dissatisfaction recorded by the AO while rejecting the expenditure claimed to have been incurred by the assessee in order to make disallowances under section 14A read with rule 8D (para 4.3 from ITA No.2467/M/2022 is taken) are as under: “4.3 The case records and the replies submitted ... pertaining to ITA No.2467/M/2022 for A.Y. 2018-19, which is written to AO containing complete detail of exempt income, submissions made, working of disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D. For ready perusal working of disallowance made by the assessee for A.Y. 2018-19 which is a lead case

M/S Edelweiss Financial Services Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2468/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yashwant Kumar Bhaskar, D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 44A

ready perusal dissatisfaction recorded by the AO while rejecting the expenditure claimed to have been incurred by the assessee in order to make disallowances under section 14A read with rule 8D (para 4.3 from ITA No.2467/M/2022 is taken) are as under: “4.3 The case records and the replies submitted ... pertaining to ITA No.2467/M/2022 for A.Y. 2018-19, which is written to AO containing complete detail of exempt income, submissions made, working of disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D. For ready perusal working of disallowance made by the assessee for A.Y. 2018-19 which is a lead case

M/S Edelweiss Financial Services Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2467/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yashwant Kumar Bhaskar, D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 44A

ready perusal dissatisfaction recorded by the AO while rejecting the expenditure claimed to have been incurred by the assessee in order to make disallowances under section 14A read with rule 8D (para 4.3 from ITA No.2467/M/2022 is taken) are as under: “4.3 The case records and the replies submitted ... pertaining to ITA No.2467/M/2022 for A.Y. 2018-19, which is written to AO containing complete detail of exempt income, submissions made, working of disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D. For ready perusal working of disallowance made by the assessee for A.Y. 2018-19 which is a lead case

DCIT-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Cactus Communication Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1491/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Pratik ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT

Navin Flurine International, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is fully dismissed

ITA 6532/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 35Section 41(1)

assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 6816/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2013-14) 26. Through Ground No.1, Revenue raised objection against deletion of disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D2 (ii) & 8D2 (iii). Issue pertaining to deletion of disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D2 (iii) has already been adjudicated ... appeal vide ITA No. 6532/Mum2019 (supra) in Navin Fluorine International Ltd. assessee’s favour. As far as issue pertaining to deletion of disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D2 (ii) is concerned, we have gone through the order of Ld. CIT (A) vide para-3.2.2 as under: “I have gone through

Sjr Commodities & Consultancies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 11(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds no.2 & 3 are partly allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 3123/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Satyapal Kumar, D.R
Section 14ASection 234B

declared loss of Rs.10,29,60,185/-. The AO invoked the provisions contained under section 14A read with rule 8D and thereby made disallowance under section 14A to the tune of Rs.47,27,561/-. The assessee disputed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 14A ... disallowance to the extent of Rs.47,15,061/- being 0.5% of average investment of Rs.94,30,12,136/- for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 14A of the Act. It is also not in dispute that as per the working given by the assessee in tabulated form available

Tech Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result we are not inclined to interfere in the order of Ld

ITA 6256/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyaltech Mahindra Limited, C/O Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aaacm3484F ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-2(3), Room No. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Acit Circle-2(3)(1), Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Appellant Vs. Tech Mahindra Limited, C/O Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aaacm3484F ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. J.D. Mistri / Sh. Harsh Kapadia Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. K.C. Kanojia- Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. J.D. Mistri / Sh. Harsh KapadiaFor Respondent: Sh. K.C. Kanojia- CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 10ASection 14ASection 234BSection 250Section 32(1)

referred to as "the CIT(A)"), the appellant hereby submits the following grounds of appeal for your sympathetic consideration: 1. Ground No. 1- Disallowance under section 14A: 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in disallowing and learned ... learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the learned AO of not accepting the alternate contention of the Appellant, that the disallowance under section 14A of the Act should be restricted to amount of exempt income earned of Rs. 19,169,981. 1.3 Without prejudice to the above

Abbott India Ltd (As Successor to Solvay Pharma India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1705/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Abott India Limited Addl. Cit-Range 7(2) Unit 3-4, Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Vs. Marg, Mumbai-400 071. Mumbai-400 020 Pan No. Aaacu 9269 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agrawal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2022

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14A

pricing adjustment of ₹ 1, 64, 77, 390/- along with addition for adjustment under section 145A of the Act amounting to ₹ 25, 10, 910/-; disallowance under section 14A of ₹ 10, 64, 440/-. On further appeal, the learned CIT(A) allowed part relief. Aggrieved with the order

Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 404/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 404/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sasken Technologies Ltd., (Formerly Known As The Deputy Sasken Communication Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 139/25, Domlur Circle – 6(1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs6424R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 15-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2017 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General:- The Learned Ao & The Drp Erred In Passing The Order / Directions In The Manner Passed By Them. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 133(6)Section 2(24)Section 92BSection 92C

applicable, computation of deduction under section 10AA as determined by the appellant be accepted. Page 6 IT(TP)A No. 404/Bang/2017 Grounds on disallowance under section 14A 8.1 The learned AO has erred in making disallowance under section 14A amounting to Rs. 69,64,735/- by invoking rule ... claim of the Assessee regarding attribution of expenses relatable to income not chargeable to tax is incorrect. 8.2 Without prejudice, while computing the disallowance under section 14A the learned AO has erred in : (i) Considering the value of investment in foreign subsidiaries, without appreciating that income earned from investment

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3022/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). It is prayed that the learned AO be directed to compute the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act as per law.” 12. The Ground No. 8 raised by the Assessee is directed against disallowance ... Assessee. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the investment which yielded exempt income during the year and re-compute disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules by taking into consideration only the investments which yielded exempt income during the previous year

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2308/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). It is prayed that the learned AO be directed to compute the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act as per law.” 12. The Ground No. 8 raised by the Assessee is directed against disallowance ... Assessee. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the investment which yielded exempt income during the year and re-compute disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules by taking into consideration only the investments which yielded exempt income during the previous year

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

circumstances of the case and law applicable, the impugned transfer pricing adjustment is liable to be deleted in entirety. Grounds on disallowance under section 14A 10. The learned assessing officer has erred in computing disallowance of Rs. 3,30,96,246 under section Page 3 IT(TP)A No. 718/Bang/2017 ... learned assessing officer has erred in invoking rule 8D(2)(iii) for the purpose of making disallowance under section 14A without demonstrating satisfaction in terms of subsection 2 of section 14A as to why the disallowance made by the assessee under section 14A amounting

ACIT- Circle-6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Cg Power & Industrial Solution Ltd. (Formerly Known As Crompton Greaves Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2955/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
Section 14Section 14ASection 35Section 80I

During the year under consideration, the assessee had earned tax free dividend income of 9.27 crores. However, the assessee did not make any disallowance under section 14A of the Act towards expenses incurred in earning the exempt income. The assessee contended before the assessing officer that it did not incur

Jm Morgan Stanley Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7118/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. LalaFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)

which does not form part of the total income. Accordingly, during the assessment, the assessee was asked why disallowance under section 14A of the Act should not be made. The AO by applying the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’) made the disallowance ... considered view that the AO has erred in applying Rule 8D of the Rules in the present case for the determination of disallowance under section 14A of the Act, as the said Rule does not apply to this year. Further, we find that in the preceding assessment years disallowance

M/S. Trianz Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 322/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.322/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Trianz Holdings Private The Additional /Dy./ Limited No.165/2, 6Th Floor Addl/Jt.Commissioner Of V. Kalyani Magnum, Doraisani Palya Income-Tax, Nfac, Delhi Iim Post, Bannerghatta Road Bangalore – 560 076. Pan : Aafca8051P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

taxable income as per ITR 21,18,86,930 Add : TP addition under section 92CA 8,99,40,145 of the Act Add : Disallowance under section 14A 4,53,000 of the Act Total additions / disallowances 9,03,93,145 Assessed taxable total income 30,22,80,075 Book Profits ... under section 115JB of the I.T.Act. Particulars Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) Book profits as per ITR 37,00,23,664 Add : Disallowance under section 14A 4,53,000 of the Act. Assessed taxable total income 37,04,76,664 7. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has filed

M/S. Praxair India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 199/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

without giving any show cause notice to the Appellant as to why the expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income should not be disallowed under section 14A of the Act. 11.7. The learned AO erred in stating that no submissions were filed in this respect by the Appellant, considering that ... Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in Appellant's own case in AY 2008-09 which directed the learned AO to delete the disallowance under section 14A of the Act on the basis that original investments in the Appellant's case were not geared or intended for earning exempt income such

M/S Praxair India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 3336/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

without giving any show cause notice to the Appellant as to why the expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income should not be disallowed under section 14A of the Act. 11.7. The learned AO erred in stating that no submissions were filed in this respect by the Appellant, considering that ... Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in Appellant's own case in AY 2008-09 which directed the learned AO to delete the disallowance under section 14A of the Act on the basis that original investments in the Appellant's case were not geared or intended for earning exempt income such

M/S United Spirits Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result, ground 7 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3091/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.3091/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Joint Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Special Range-7 V. Bangalore. # 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Counsel and Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR
Section 115PSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the final assessment order, following the DRP directions, the AO made the disallowance under section 14A as per rule 8D at Rs. 48,04,00,000. The Tribunal in assessee’s own case ... supra.” 10.6.1 Following the above order of the ITAT in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2012-2013, we set aside the disallowance under section 14A of the I.T.Act and restore the issue to the file of the AO. The AO shall follow the above directions of the ITAT

The Thanjavur District Co Op Milk Producers Union Limited, Thanjavur vs. ACIT, Circle2(1), Trichy

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

ITA 404/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.404/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Thanjavur District Co Op The Principal Milk Producers Union Limited, Vs Commissioner Of Income No.1, Nanjikottai Road, Tax-1, Madurai. Thanjavur – 613006. Pan: Aaaat 0224 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By K.Meenakshisundaram - Itp Revenue By Shri M.Rajan – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Against The Order U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Act) Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Madurai-1, Dated 26/03/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26/3/2022 Received By The Appellant On 1/4/2022 Is Objected To On The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Madurai Erred In Setting Aside The Valid Order Passed By The Assisstant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-2(1) Trichy Dated 5/11/2019 For The Assessment Year 2017- 2018 Under Section 263 On Mere Assumptions & Presumptions That The Order Had Been Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Misdirected Himself That The Valid Order Passed By The Assisstant Commissioner Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue Simply For The Reason That The

Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

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 has been incurred for the purpose of business. The PCIT though was unhappy with

Sapphire Land Developemnt P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5308/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 8D(2)(iii)

expenses incurred towards earning exempt income as per provisions of section 14A of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has computed the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) to the amount of Rs.1,19,82,373/- and added to the total income of the assessee. During the course ... appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A), 3 ITA 5308/Mum/2017 the Ld.CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the quantum of disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D as per the alternative plea of the assessee, after considering only those investments from which exempt income was received by the assessee