“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

Addl CIT RG 10(1), Mumbai vs. Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2841/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Years: 2005-06 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Infrastructure Leasing & Tax, Financial Services Ltd., Range – 10(1), The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Room No.455, Vs. Plot No.C-22, G Block, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mk Road, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaaci 0989F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Dharm Veer Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 18 . 07 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27. 07 . 2022 O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh: The Appeal Of The Revenue For Assessment Year 2005-06 Vide Ita No.2841/M/2011 Was Adjudicated On 30.04.2019. Subsequently, The Revenue Has Filed Miscellaneous Application Stating That While Adjudicating The Aforesaid Appeal Ground No.2, Ground No.9 & Ground No.10 Pertaining To Disallowance Of Bad Debt, Claim Of Deduction Under Section 36(1)(Vii) Of The Act & Disallowance Out Of Travelling & Conveyance Expenses Were Not Adjudicated. Therefore The Appeal Of The Revenue Was Recalled By Ma No.571/M/2019 Order Dated 20.01.2020 To Adjudicate The Aforesaid Three Grounds Of The Revenue. The Relevant Facts Pertaining To These Three Grounds Of Appeal Are Discussed While Adjudicating The Same As Under:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, D.R

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viii)

only 10 transactions. However, the AO has worked out interest and other cost in accordance with the method he applied to determine the disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The AO has not established how the method of working adopted by the assessee was not correct

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3033/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 10ASection 250Section 2D

bonding of fixed assets belonging to STPI unit and customs duty for assets shifting treating the same as capital expenditure. Ground No. 3-Disallowance under section 14A of the Act 3.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the leaned AO in disallowing expenditure of Rs.8 ... Tech Mahindra Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.3033/Mum./2014 and IT(TP)A no.301/Bang./2014 3.2 The leaned CIT(A) further erred in not restricting disallowance under section 14A Act to Rs.4,65.916/-, being direct expense incurred by it. Ground No. 4- Disallowance of foreign exchange loss The learned CIT(A) erred

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC--1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 251/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kant, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta, D.R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153C

discussed while adjudicating the ground of appeal of the assessee as follows: Ground No.1 “Not granting relief in respect of the amount disallowed under section 14A to the amount of Rs.1,48,26,898/-.” 3 ITA Nos.248, 249 & 250/M/2021 & ors. M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. 3. The AO completed ... Cement Ltd. 5. The AO has passed order under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2016 and made disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(ii) to the amount of Rs.33,26,994/- and Rs.1,20,21,635/- under section 14A read with

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC--1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 250/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kant, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta, D.R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153C

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC--1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 249/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kant, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta, D.R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153C

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC--1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 248/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kant, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta, D.R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153C

Chalet Hotels Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 929/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Your Honor That The Said Disallowance May Kindly Be Deleted.”

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay V. Deshmukh

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by upholding the action of the AO and thereby confirming disallowance under section 14A of the Act of Rs. 5,73,35,740/-. The Appellant pray‟s before your Honor that the said disallowance may kindly ... Order, dated 30.12.2019, passed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act which was partly allowed. On the issue of disallowance under Section 14A, the CIT(A), in his order dated 26.03.2021, directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute income as determined by the Assessing Officer vide

M/S. Atria Convergence Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 1, Bangalore

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

ITA 2475/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194JSection 40

year in which such creditors ceased to exit. 4.a) That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D. Page 3 of 26 b) That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 14A read with Rule ... Moody (supra) cannot be used in the reverse to contend that even if no income has been received, the expenditure incurred can be disallowed under Section 14A of the Act. " 11.8 In the case of Holcin India (P) Ltd. (supra) the facts were that the respondent- assessee was a subsidiary

M/S. Time Technoplast Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 876/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Time Technoplast Limited V. Pr.Cit -3 2Nd Floor, 55 Corporate Avenue Room No. 612, 6Th Floor Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E) Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai- 400072 M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact2783J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Kabra Department By : Shri Rajesh Damor

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

noted that assessee has made investments in various foreign companies that dividends whereof are taxable and therefore liable to be excluded while computing disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D. In view of these facts, we are inclined to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing

Sonasta Resorts Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3) (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2109/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadales Rifaur Sonasta Resorts Pvt Vs. Ito – 5(3)(4) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 111, Small Scale Mk Road, Industrial, Prem Dev Mumbai – 400020. Co-Op Society Ltd, Udyog Nagar, Sv Road, Goregaon, Mumbai – 400062. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs0035L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ashokkumar Suthar.Ar Respondent By : Shri S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri AshokKumar Suthar.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Anbuselvam.DR

Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in not restricting the disallowance under section 14A of the Act r Rule 8D to the extent of exempt income. 4. The Appellant prays that it may be allowed to add, alter

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2551/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Cc-3(3), Vs. M/Swelspun India Ltd Room No. 1923, 19Th B Wing, 9Th Floor, Floor, Air India Bldg, Trade Worldcentere, Nariman Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400021. Kamala Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw1259N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan.Cit.Dr Respondent By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal.Ar Date Of Hearing 12.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Jasbir Chouhan.CIT.DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal.AR

Section 115JSection 132Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

that while computing the book profit under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB no addition can be made in respect of disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the disallowance while computing the book profit. The appeal of the assessee

M/S. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 148/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 250Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

Appellant. M/s. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore Page 4 of 7 5.4 The Learned CIT(A) ha' s erred in confirming the disallowance under section 14A of the Act which is high and arbitrary. 5.5 Without prejudice to the above that disallowance under section 14A of the Act should ... made, the Learned CIT(A) has erred In restricting the disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules to the extent of the exempt income of INR 53,64,000 without considering the rectification order passed by the Assessing officer dated September

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2692/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

issue arising on ground no. 3, raised in assessee’s appeal is pertaining to allocation of expenses towards earning dividend income and disallowance under section 14A of the Act. Tata Chemicals Ltd. A.Y. 2004–05 & 2005–06 13. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating ... assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to quantify the interest expenses attributable to such investments and explain why the same should not be disallowed under section 14A of the Act. In reply, assessee submitted that the main business of the assessee company is manufacturing and sale of chemicals, cement, detergent

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2553/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2733/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2440/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

Lalitkumar Ratanchand Chadha, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 4(2) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2276/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Renu KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, Sr. AR

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 246ASection 250

vide application dated 17/02/2016 filed under section 154 of the Act sought rectification of the aforesaid assessment order in respect of computation of disallowance under section 14A of the Act. Vide letter dated 14/01/2020, assessee again requested the Assessing Officer for consideration of its rectification application filed under section ... learned A.R.”) submitted that the Assessing Officer wrongly included ineligible assets / investments in the investments, which yield tax exempt income, while computing the disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D vide assessment order. Accordingly, the assessee filed rectification application requesting for re–computation and deletion of additional disallowance made under

DCIT Circle- 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 928/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R

Section 145Section 14ASection 92CSection 92F

respectively and Ground No.12 of A.Y. 2013-14 bearing ITA Nos.2799/M/2019 6. AO being dissatisfied with the working given by assessee for making disallowance under section 14A of the Act, invoked the provisions contained under section 14A read with rule 8D and thereby made disallowance of Rs.3 ... view of our findings on ground No.1 of A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 & ground No.5 of A.Y. 2013-14, when there is no disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D of the Act, no disallowance is sustainable under section 14A read with rule 8D under MAT computation under section

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Arshiya Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal by Revenue (ITA No

ITA 900/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 31.03.2014, respectively. However, the Assessee had not made any disallowance under Section 14A of the Act in the return of income. Accordingly, the Assessee was asked to show cause why disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules ... Assessee during the relevant previous year. 6.2. The Ld. Departmental Representative appearing before us submitted that the Assessing Officer was correct in making disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. During the assessment proceeding, the Assessee had not produced any cash flow statement to show the source of funds used

DCIT CC- 2(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Avinash N. Bhosale, Pune

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1436/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 10(38)Section 2Section 2(14)Section 250Section 45Section 47

dismissed. Shri Avinash N. Bhosale ITA No.1436/Mum./2020 7. The issue arising in ground no.2, raised in Revenue’s appeal is pertaining to disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 8. We find that the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case cited supra decided similar