← All Phrases

“disallowance u/s 14A”

DisallowancesSection 14ASection 14A2,938 judgments

The decision most relied on for disallowance u/s 14A is CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd. (223 Taxmann 130), cited in 579 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on disallowance u/s 14A

CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd.
223 Taxmann 130 · 2014 · High Court
579
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not warranted if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year.

CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.
330 ITR 175 · 2011 · High Court
207
citing judgments

Disallowances made under various sections, such as for PF/ESIC contributions, result in an increase in business profits, and these enhanced profits are eligible for deduction under Sections 10A and 10AA. Similarly, gains from foreign exchange fluctuations directly linked to export sales are also eligible for deduction under Section 10A.

Cargo Motors (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
145 Taxmann.com 641 · 2022 · High Court
46
citing judgments

The disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, particularly Rule 8D(iii) for administrative expenses, should only consider investments that have actually yielded exempt income during the relevant assessment year. Section 14A empowers the Assessing Officer to determine expenditure related to income not forming part of total income.

Sobha Developers Ltd. v. DCIT
125 Taxmann.com 72 · 2021 · High Court
44
citing judgments

Disallowance under section 14A is a notional disallowance and cannot be added back while computing Book Profits under section 115JB for Minimum Alternate Tax purposes.

Tata Industries Ltd. v. ITO
181 TTJ 600 · 2016 · ITAT
29
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Even if interest expenditure is considered, it cannot be solely attributed to earning exempt dividend income as investors also consider potential capital gains.

PCIT v. J.J. Glastronics (P.) Ltd.
139 Taxmann.com 375 · 2022 · High Court
28
citing judgments

Additions made under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, read with Rule 8D, cannot be considered for computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Act.

M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT
38 DTR 282 · 2010 · Reported
26
citing judgments

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act is not applicable to insurance businesses governed by specific provisions of Section 44 and Schedule 1. Profit on sale of investments by insurance companies is not taxable, especially after the deletion of sub-rule (b) of Rule 5 of the First Schedule.

PCIT v. Dipesh Lalchand Shah
143 Taxmann.com 419 · 2022 · High Court
18
citing judgments

Disallowance under section 14A cannot be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year. This applies even if the assessee has made investments in shares or has income from a partnership that is negative.

Judgments citing disallowance u/s 14A

Jt. CIT(OSD)-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Tata Capital Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2109/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 7060/मुं/ 2017 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 1515/मुं/ 2019("न.व. 2015-16) Tata Capital Limited, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai – 400 013 Pan:Aadcp-9147-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(3)(1), Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 61/मुं/ 2018 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 2109/मुं/ 2019("न.व. 2015-16) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(3)(1),/Jcit (Osd) 2(3)(1) Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Tata Capital Limited, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai – 400 013 Pan:Aadcp-9147-P ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane
Section 14ASection 56(2)(viia)

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii), without considering the fact that Revenue has not accepted the decision ... erred in directing the AO to exclude strategic investment from the total investment for computing disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii), without considering that the assessee has earned dividend income from its strategic investment which were claimed as exempt." "On the circumstances and facts of the case

Tata Capital Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1515/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 7060/मुं/ 2017 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 1515/मुं/ 2019("न.व. 2015-16) Tata Capital Limited, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai – 400 013 Pan:Aadcp-9147-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(3)(1), Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 61/मुं/ 2018 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 2109/मुं/ 2019("न.व. 2015-16) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(3)(1),/Jcit (Osd) 2(3)(1) Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Tata Capital Limited, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai – 400 013 Pan:Aadcp-9147-P ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane
Section 14ASection 56(2)(viia)

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii), without considering the fact that Revenue has not accepted the decision ... erred in directing the AO to exclude strategic investment from the total investment for computing disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii), without considering that the assessee has earned dividend income from its strategic investment which were claimed as exempt." "On the circumstances and facts of the case

Tata Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7060/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 7060/मुं/ 2017 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 1515/मुं/ 2019("न.व. 2015-16) Tata Capital Limited, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai – 400 013 Pan:Aadcp-9147-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(3)(1), Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 61/मुं/ 2018 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 2109/मुं/ 2019("न.व. 2015-16) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(3)(1),/Jcit (Osd) 2(3)(1) Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Tata Capital Limited, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai – 400 013 Pan:Aadcp-9147-P ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane
Section 14ASection 56(2)(viia)

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii), without considering the fact that Revenue has not accepted the decision ... erred in directing the AO to exclude strategic investment from the total investment for computing disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii), without considering that the assessee has earned dividend income from its strategic investment which were claimed as exempt." "On the circumstances and facts of the case

Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 2976/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. V. Balaji (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

could be grouped as under: - No. Issue Amount (Rs.) 1. Transfer pricing adjustment on 91.26 Lacs advertisement, marketing and promotion expenditure (AMP) 2. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act 74.11 Lacs 3. Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for 42.91 Lacs short deduction of taxes 4 Provision created ... been shown to us. Therefore, taking a consistent stand in the matter, the impugned adjustment stand deleted. The corresponding grounds stands allowed. 5. Disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act: 5.1 The assessee earned exempt dividend income of Rs.480.78 Lacs whereas the assessee debited interest expenditure of Rs.387.70 Lacs. Accordingly

DCIT- CC- 2(1), Mumbai vs. Mirah Dekor Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 623/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 234ASection 234B

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,39,02.640/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A without considering the facts that the exempt income requires needs proper planning and needs of professional and hence exempt income cannot be earned without ... Assessing Officer observed that assessee has credited dividend amounting to ₹.17,939/- under the head “other income”. When the assessee was asked why disallowance u/s. 14A should not be made in its case. Assessee vide its submission dated 17.05.2017 stated that the investment made were not for earning exempt income

M/S Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2478/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019

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

referred as CIT(A)] erred in upholding the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1) [AO] in making disallowance u/s 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) without recording his dissatisfaction with respect to correctness ... which Appellant has actually earned the exempt income. (iii) The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of AO in making the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 2. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground pertaining

M/S Edelwiss Rural & Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2470/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

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

referred as CIT(A)] erred in upholding the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1) [AO] in making disallowance u/s 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) without recording his dissatisfaction with respect to correctness ... which Appellant has actually earned the exempt income. (iii) The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of AO in making the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 2. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground pertaining

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

referred as CIT(A)] erred in upholding the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1) [AO] in making disallowance u/s 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) without recording his dissatisfaction with respect to correctness ... which Appellant has actually earned the exempt income. (iii) The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of AO in making the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 2. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground pertaining

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

referred as CIT(A)] erred in upholding the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1) [AO] in making disallowance u/s 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) without recording his dissatisfaction with respect to correctness ... which Appellant has actually earned the exempt income. (iii) The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of AO in making the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 2. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground pertaining

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

referred as CIT(A)] erred in upholding the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1) [AO] in making disallowance u/s 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) without recording his dissatisfaction with respect to correctness ... which Appellant has actually earned the exempt income. (iii) The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of AO in making the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 2. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground pertaining

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Ask Wealth Advisors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2466/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharydcit-6(1)(2) Vs. M/S Ask Wealth Advisors Room No.563B, 5Th Floor, Private Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Birla Aurora, 16 Level Road, Mumbai – 400020 Office Floor 9, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai - 400030 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aafca9124M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Avneesh TiwariFor Respondent: J.D. Mistry
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

raised by the A.O the assessee submitted that it has not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration, therefore, question of disallowance u/s 14A did not arise. However, the A.O has not agreed with the submission of the assessee and stated that assessee borrowed huge funds on which ... assessee that no disallowance can be made where there was no exempt income cannot be accepted. Therefore, the A.O has computed disallowance u/s 14A to the amount of Rs.1,55,76,174/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before

ACIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbaiq vs. M/S Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismis

ITA 2449/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit-14(1)(1), M/S. Kotak Mahindra Life Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Insurance Company Ltd Bhavan, M.K.Road Vs. 2Nd Floor, 12 Bkc, Mumbai-400020. Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400 051 Pan No. Aaaco3983B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agrawal, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, Cit Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2022

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DR
Section 14A

r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 25.09.2021 wherein he made addition of ₹75,50,69,723/ 75,50,69,723/- fordisallowance u/s 14A disallowance u/s 14A, of the Act addition for negative reserves of ₹203,23,09,790/ Act addition for negative reserves of 203,23,09,790/- and addition ... Revenue is accordingly dismissed. 8. The ground No. 2 of the appeal The ground No. 2 of the appeal relate to disallowance u/s disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee 14A of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee 14A

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)

following grounds of appeal: Navin Fluorine International Ltd. “On the facts and in the circumstances, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of the income tax Act, 1961 r.w. Rule 8 D (ii) amounting to Rs. 39,95,460/- and r.w. Rule 8D(iii) restricting ... appeal: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w. Rule 8 D(ii) amounting to Rs.27,67,160/- In the facts and circumstances

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

Consultancies Pvt. Ltd. disallowance of Rs.47,15,061/-, being 0.5% of average investments of Rs.94,30,12,1367- for the purpose of calculating disallowance u/s 14A without considering the fact that only the investments of Rs.20,85,76,735/- had generated income of Rs.79,21,406/- and hence only those ... investments ought have been considered under Rule 8D(iii) for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A, thereby restricting the disallowance to Rs.10,42,884/- only. Ground of Appeal 2) a) On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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)

rejected. Ground No. 4 is consequential in nature hence to our adjudication only Ground No. 1 & 3 are there before us pertaining to disallowance u/s. 14A made by the AO amounting to Rs 121,77,08,779/- and directions for allowing relief for Double Taxation respectively. AO made disallowance ... disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(iii) amounting to Rs 8,91,86,612/-. Out of these 3 disallowances u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D the Ld. CIT (A)deleted the addition made under rule 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs 50,69,22,167/-. Assessee approached ITAT against disallowances confirmed under

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

Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 is called for and the stand taken by the Assessing Officer in this regard is incorrect to say the least ... relevant working of disallowance available on page 1477 of the paperbook is reproduced as under: SOLVAY PHARMA INDIA LIMITED Without prejudice working of disallowance u/s 14A for assessment year 2007- 20 ABOTT INDIA LIMITED 08 Disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Sr. Name of Proportionate Time

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Century Real Estate Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 740/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar, D.R

funds far exceed the value of investments, it should be considered that investments have been made out of interest free funds and no disallowance u/s. 14A towards any interest expenditure can be made. This view was again confirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. HDFC Bank ... amount cross charged to the partnership firms and the net amount would have been charged to the profit & loss account. The disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is called for out of the above said net amount. 8. We notice that the assessee has earned exempt income as detailed below

Vaishnavi Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 728/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

returned income of Rs.11,37,56,640/-. The addition made to returned income is as follows: Disallowance of Depreciation - Rs. 3,55,887/- Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D (Rs. 29,68,522/- + Rs.4,98,346/-) - Rs. 34,66,868/- Total Rs. 38,22,755/- 2.6 In the course of assessment ... mutual funds, and hence no disallowance was made u/s. 14A of the Act. However, not accepting the contention of the assessee, interalia, the disallowance u/s 14A was made by the learned Assessing Officer as stated above. 2.7 Against the assessment order, the assessee had preferred an appeal before honourable

Vaishnavi Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 727/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

returned income of Rs.11,37,56,640/-. The addition made to returned income is as follows: Disallowance of Depreciation - Rs. 3,55,887/- Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D (Rs. 29,68,522/- + Rs.4,98,346/-) - Rs. 34,66,868/- Total Rs. 38,22,755/- 2.6 In the course of assessment ... mutual funds, and hence no disallowance was made u/s. 14A of the Act. However, not accepting the contention of the assessee, interalia, the disallowance u/s 14A was made by the learned Assessing Officer as stated above. 2.7 Against the assessment order, the assessee had preferred an appeal before honourable

Vaishnavi Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 695/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

returned income of Rs.11,37,56,640/-. The addition made to returned income is as follows: Disallowance of Depreciation - Rs. 3,55,887/- Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D (Rs. 29,68,522/- + Rs.4,98,346/-) - Rs. 34,66,868/- Total Rs. 38,22,755/- 2.6 In the course of assessment ... mutual funds, and hence no disallowance was made u/s. 14A of the Act. However, not accepting the contention of the assessee, interalia, the disallowance u/s 14A was made by the learned Assessing Officer as stated above. 2.7 Against the assessment order, the assessee had preferred an appeal before honourable