“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

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Apl Logistics (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6473/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

referred to as ‘the Act’) and also rejection of alternate prayer of allowing interest expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. (2) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D. 3. Narrating the facts of the case, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged ... Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, the ld. Counsel submitted that during the relevant period no exempt income was earned by the assessee, hence, no disallowance

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Apl Logistics (India ) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6471/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

Apl Logistics (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4150/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

Shri. Vinod Nevatia, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2013–14

ITA 1392/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri S.C. TiwariFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Nair, Sr. AR

Section 14ASection 250

upto assessment year 2009-10, he asked me what was the position of the assessment in my case on account of disallowance under section 14A for subsequent years. 7. I told him that I would check up and revert to him. On checking up I realized that appeal ... such tax free income, assessee was asked to show cause as to why expenses attributable to earning the dividend income should not be disallowed under section 14A of the Act. In reply, assessee submitted that no expenditure is incurred for earning non-taxable income and the assessee has not borrowed

Shri. Vinod Nevatia, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2013–14

ITA 1391/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri S.C. TiwariFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Nair, Sr. AR

Section 14ASection 250

M/S S B Data Systems Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 5 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7175/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Smita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

facility and that the investment in shares of the subsidiary or associate concerns or a bank has made out of business expediency, no disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D should be made. The learned CIT(A) following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment ... Court in Nirved Traders (P.) Ltd. v/s Dy. CIT, IT Appeal No.149 of 2017, vide judgement dated 23-4-2019, has held that disallowance under section 14A of the Act cannot be more than exempt income. 9. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court

The Great Eastern Shipping Co., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. RG.5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 197/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Percy j. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate with S/Sh. Jitendra Jain& Rashid PoonawalFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat , CIT and Shri Sambit Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

assessment year 2006-07, ground No.1 of the appeal is allowed. 8. In ground No.2 to 9 of appeal, the assessee has assailed disallowance under section 14A of the Act on different facets. During the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal the assessee has earned dividend income ... reported as 328 ITR 81 (Bom). The ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that the assessee has raised a plea that no disallowance under section 14A could have been made in respect of investments held as stock in trade, however, this argument of the assessee would not sustain

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(2)(1), Mumbai-400020 vs. M/S. PAN India Network Infravest Lt., Mumbai-400018

Accordingly, order of Ld. CIT(A) is confirmed and ground raised by revenue are dismissed

ITA 1061/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1061/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Pan India Network Dcit Cir-8(2)(1) Infravest Ltd. R. No. 624, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 135, Continental Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Building, Dr. A. B. Road, Worli Mumbai-400 018 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccp2459H (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jay Bhansali, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shambhu Yadav, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 10.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 10.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 28.01.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-49, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) For Ay 2017-18. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav

Section 143(3)Section 14A

before me. The assessee has relied upon multiple judicial pronouncements as referred to in its submissions above, where it was held that no disallowance under section 14A of the Act can be made when no exempt income had been earned. 4 I.T.A. No. 1061/Mum/2022 M/s Pan India Network Infravest ... India Network Infravest Ltd. Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 149 of 2017, dated 23- 4-2019] has held that disallowance under section 14A of the Act cannot be more than exempt income. (e) In the above view, Question (A) does not give rise to any substantial

M/S P N Writer & Co Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1046/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1046/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit Cir-8(2)(1) M/S P. N. Writer & Co. R. No. 624, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 105, Writer, Dr. B. Bhavan, Ambedkar Road, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 033 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacp5966B (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Priyesh Gansotta, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shambhu Yadav, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 10.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 10.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 22.03.2022, Passed By National Faceless

For Appellant: Shri Priyesh GansottaFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav

Section 143(3)Section 14A

order in Nirved Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 149 of 2017, dated 23- 4-2019] has held that disallowance under section 14A of the Act cannot be more than exempt income. (e) In the above view, Question (A) does not give rise to any substantial question

M/S. Onmobile Global Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2560/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

which, inter alia, the aforesaid TP adjustment was incorporated. The AO also proposed to (i) make a disallowance of depreciation; (ii) make a disallowance under Section 14A of the Act and (iii) recompute the deduction claimed under Section 10AA of the Act. IT(TP)A Nos.139 & 2560/Bang/2019 Page ... final assessment order dated 28.11.2018 in which the TP adjustment was reduced to Rs. 95,04,68,087/-. The disallowance of depreciation and disallowance under Section 14A of the Act came to be sustained. 7. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the Assessee filed the appeal before this

M/S Onmobile Global Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 139/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

ITO 7(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Prabhadevi Properties & Trading Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5873/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 7(3)(4) V. M/S. Prabhadevi Properties & Trading Company Ltd., Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, Room No. 805 “The Peregrine” 400 Pratishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacp4718R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Atul Suraiya Department By : Shri Jagdish Jangid

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Jagdish Jangid

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

Disallowance of Rs. 35.733/- under section 14A The Assessee submits that if it succeeds in its ground of mutuality, then the question of disallowance under section 14A would not arise. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) has given a finding that the Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction ... Officer was not empowered to make a disallowance. The Assessee submits that as no satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer, the disallowance under section 14A(2) is not justified.” 17. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that the company

DCIT Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Zee Entertinment Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 512/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.512/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Zee Entertainment Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Enterprises Ltd. Vs. 18Th Floor, A Wing, Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Marathon Futurex, N. M. 400020. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz0243R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jay Bhansali Revenue By: Shri Vinod Tanwani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/08/2022 O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Dated 05.10.2021 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Facts In Brief Are That Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 23.11.2013 Declaring An Income Of Rs.9,53,02,05,770/- Which Was Revised To Rs.9,53,45,48,223/- On 31.03.2015. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noticed That The Assessee Has Entered Into International Transactions With Its Aes (Associated Enterprises) M/S. Taj Tv & Therefore A Reference Was Made Under Section 92Ca(1) Of The Act Dated 23.03.2015 To Transfer Pricing Officer-4(2), Mumbai. The Assessee Is In The Business Of Broadcasting Of Satellite Television Channels, Space Selling Agent For Other Television Channels, Sale Of Television Programmes, Films, Movies Etc. The Ao Finally Framed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C (13) Of The Act By Making Two Additions

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 92C

total outstanding balance of facility obtained from Deutsche Bank [against 1% charged by the assessee] and 2nd in respect of disallowance under section 14A of Rs.10,40,723/- which disallowance was deleted by Ld. CIT(A) by relying on the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal in ACIT

Arnav Gruh Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

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

ITA 5709/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Arnav Gruh Ltd. 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Road No.7, Marol, Midc, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aaaca4900E ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle-32, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 57

Trib.) Goldgerg Finance (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT Thane.” 13. Before making disallowance, the AO has not given any cogent reasons for rejecting the disallowance under section 14A of the Act amounting to Rs. 59,69,632/- made by the appellant itself and resorting to the provisions of section 14A ... power is co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer. That being the case, the Assessing Officer could not have done any further disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D.” 15. Considering the decision of Jurisdictional ITAT in assessee’s own case as mentioned (supra) and argument of assessee

ACIT CC 3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Welspun Steel Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2137/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Ira BahlFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Chaudhary

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

account the Explanation inserted by the Finance Act 2022. Referring to the clarification provided under the sub-heading “The clarification in respect of disallowance under Section 14A in absence of any exempt income during an assessment year” contained in the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2022, the Learned Departmental Representative ... Assessing Officer be restored as the provisions contained in Section 14A of the Act do not provide that the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act is to be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned by an assessee during the relevant previous year. 5. Per contra

Welspun Steel Ltd. (Successor in Interest to Welspun Energy Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2786/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

assessment, Assessing Officer observed that the Assessee has earned exempt dividend income of INR 52,85,697/- and has not made any disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessee was asked to show-cause why disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income ... concluded that disallowance was required to be made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. The CIT(A), however, restricted the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act to the amount of exempt income of INR 52,85,697/- earned by the Assessee. As regards, computation of books profits

Datalink Informatics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 09, Mumbai

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

ITA 571/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

restricted to the exempt income earned by it.” 11. The learned A.R. submitted that the assessee suo–moto made a disallowance under section 14A of the Act over and above the exempt income earned by the assessee. It was submitted that as the legal position at the time of filing ... before the learned CIT(A). It was further submitted that no computation has been provided by the assessee as to how suo–moto disallowance under section 14A of the Act was offered by the assessee. Datalink Informatics Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.571/Mum./2016 13. We have considered the rival submissions

ACIT Cent. Cir 5(40, Mumbai vs. M/S. Wadhwa Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 148/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 The Asstt. Commissioner M/S. Wadhwa Group Of Income Tax, Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 5(4), 301 Platina, Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Plot C-59, Vs. Air India Building, G Block, Nariman Point, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 098 Pan: Aaccv3961G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O. Rajora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14A

High Court in the case of Nirved Traders Pvt Ltd Vs. DCIT [421ITR 142] wherein it has held as under: "Held, that the disallowance under section 14A read with rule 3D could not exceed the assessee's exempt income. The disallowance under section 14A was to be limited ... goes to prove that the same is passed in view of the settled principle of law that in any case disallowance under section 14A of the Act cannot be more than exempt income earned by the assessee during the year under consideration. In the instant case assessee has undisputedly earned

Addl CIT RG 10(2), Mumbai vs. Geometric Softwar Solutions Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground no

ITA 6219/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Geometric Software The Acit Solutions Company Ltd. Ward 10(2), [ Now Merged With Hcl Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Technologies Limited ] Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 806, Sidharth, 96 Nehru Mumbai-400 020 Place, New Delhi 19 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabcg 0066 A Co No. 157/Mum/2011 (Arising In Ita No.6219/Mum/2010 For A.Y. 2005–06) M/S Geometric Software Solutions Company Ltd. The Acit (Now Gemetric Ltd.) [ Now Ward 10(2), Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Merged With Hcl Vs. Technologies Limited] Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 806, Sidharth, 96 Nehru Place, New Delhi 19 (Respondent) (Cross Objector) Assessee By : Shri Porus F. Kaka & Shri Manish Kanth, Ars‟ Revenue By : Shri Sumit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Porus F. Kaka &For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 10ASection 14A

same requires to be reduced substantially. 7) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in relying on Rule 8D for computing the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, without the Assessing Officer having recorded any satisfaction or finding that expenses had been incurred by the Appellant for earning ... amount of Rs 2,22,08,528 – is taxed Under the income from house property. c. learned Assessing Officer asked the assessee about disallowance under Section 14A of the Act as assessee did not disallow any sum , the learned Assessing Officer computed disallowance

Geometric Software Solutins Co. Ltd ( Now Gemetric Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no

ITA 5975/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Porus F. Kaka &For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 10ASection 14A