← 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

Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1228/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan
Section 14ASection 250Section 37

erred in confirming the order of learned assessing officer with regards to disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 54,33,62,192/- in relation to exempt income earned during the year under consideration. It is submitted that the disallowance made by the learned assessing officer ... Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that no amount of interest on secured loan should be taken into consideration while making disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for the year under consideration. Further it is submitted that the net interest expenses

Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4229/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan
Section 14ASection 250Section 37

erred in confirming the order of learned assessing officer with regards to disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 54,33,62,192/- in relation to exempt income earned during the year under consideration. It is submitted that the disallowance made by the learned assessing officer ... Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that no amount of interest on secured loan should be taken into consideration while making disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for the year under consideration. Further it is submitted that the net interest expenses

Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3004/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan
Section 14ASection 250Section 37

erred in confirming the order of learned assessing officer with regards to disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 54,33,62,192/- in relation to exempt income earned during the year under consideration. It is submitted that the disallowance made by the learned assessing officer ... Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that no amount of interest on secured loan should be taken into consideration while making disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for the year under consideration. Further it is submitted that the net interest expenses

M/S United Breweries Ltd, 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 481/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT –DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

action of the AO in disallowing expenses relatable to the earlier year investment of INR 2541 lakhs even after upholding the principle that disallowance u/s 14A is not warranted if the assessee's own funds and non-interest bearing funds are more than the investment, without appreciating that the same ... demand of Dividend Distribution tax on the assessee, without adducing any reason 10. Grounds related to additions to Book profit of amounts disallowed u/s 14A 10.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of 8 M/s.United Breweries Limited. the AO in adding back to the book profit

M/S. Benzo Chem Industries Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT/NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 587/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.587/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Benzo Chem Industries Pvt. बिधम/ Pcit/Nfac Ltd. Pcit Circle-6/Ao-Nfac Vs. 26-28A, Cawasji Patel Maharashtra/New Delhi Street, Fort-400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb3369G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Saboo Revenue By: Ms. Samruddhi Hande (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-06, Mumbai Dated 22.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh SabooFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande (Sr. DR)
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 263

para 7, page 45 of PB wherein assessee replied to the aforesaid query of AO by stating “Para 7. The working of disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D at Rs.10,73,398/-. We would 3 A.Y. 2017-18 Benzo Chem Industries Pvt. Ltd. further like to state that the disallowance ... investment made in the mutual funds. The calculation of the same enclosed herewith’’. Thus according to the Ld. AR, this issue regarding disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D was inquired by the AO thus discharging the duty of investigating officer on this issue during the assessment proceedings and after perusal

ACIT CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd (Successor to M/S Bellissimo Hi-Rise Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 490/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

Income-tax Act, 1961." 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D without considering the ignoring the fact that disallowance of expenditure can be made even where taxpayer in a particular year has not earned

DCIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is thus dismissed

ITA 3307/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2008-09
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in computing disallowance u/s 14A at Rs. 2,88,59,369/- without appreciating the fact that no expenditure has been incurred by the appellant for earning exempt income

Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6405/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 28

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in computing disallowance u/s 14A at Rs. 6,99,32,651/- without appreciating the fact that no expenditure has been incurred by the appellant for earning exempt income ... That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in computing disallowance u/s 14A at Rs. 6,99,32,651/- by applying a method akin to the method prescribed under Rule 8D without appreciating the fact that

Ambuja Cements Ltd ( Formerly Known As Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is thus dismissed

ITA 2428/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2006-07
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in computing disallowance u/s 14A at Rs. 2,88,59,369/- without appreciating the fact that no expenditure has been incurred by the appellant for earning exempt income

R K Powergen P Ltd, Chennai vs. PCIT Central I Chennai, Chennai

In the result, the primary condition to invoke the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 remains unsatisfied

ITA 259/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Ravichandran (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthilkumaran (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

that the amendment as referred to by Ld. Pr. CIT in the impugned order would not change the settled legal position that the disallowance u/s 14A was to be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed ... perusal of the assessment order, it could be seen that the assessee earned exempt income of Rs.20255/- which led ld. AO to invoke disallowance u/s 14A. The assessee computed disallowance of Rs.138.90 Lacs as per Rule 8D but relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

DCIT, CC 1(1), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal for AY 2014-15 filed by ld

ITA 2050/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, Edelweiss House Off Cst Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Edelweiss House Off Cst Bldg., (Annexe0, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe0, Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) 3 Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce2709H Assessee By : Shri. Ravikant Pathak Revenue By : Shri. Suresh Periasamy, (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2022. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri. Suresh Periasamy, (CIT
Section 10Section 14Section 44

Insurance business, even when the assessee has claimed exempted income u/s. 10 of the I.T. Act and has also itself made some disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the return? 3 Therefore at present the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of coordinate bench

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Limited, Mumbai

In the result appeal for AY 2014-15 filed by ld

ITA 2049/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, Edelweiss House Off Cst Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Edelweiss House Off Cst Bldg., (Annexe0, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe0, Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) 3 Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce2709H Assessee By : Shri. Ravikant Pathak Revenue By : Shri. Suresh Periasamy, (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2022. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri. Suresh Periasamy, (CIT
Section 10Section 14Section 44

Insurance business, even when the assessee has claimed exempted income u/s. 10 of the I.T. Act and has also itself made some disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the return? 3 Therefore at present the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of coordinate bench

DCIT, CC 1(1), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal for AY 2014-15 filed by ld

ITA 2048/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, Edelweiss House Off Cst Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Edelweiss House Off Cst Bldg., (Annexe0, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe0, Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) 3 Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce2709H Assessee By : Shri. Ravikant Pathak Revenue By : Shri. Suresh Periasamy, (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2022. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri. Suresh Periasamy, (CIT
Section 10Section 14Section 44

Insurance business, even when the assessee has claimed exempted income u/s. 10 of the I.T. Act and has also itself made some disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the return? 3 Therefore at present the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of coordinate bench

DCIT, CC 1(1), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal for AY 2014-15 filed by ld

ITA 2047/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, Edelweiss House Off Cst Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Edelweiss House Off Cst Bldg., (Annexe0, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe0, Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) 3 Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce2709H Assessee By : Shri. Ravikant Pathak Revenue By : Shri. Suresh Periasamy, (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2022. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri. Suresh Periasamy, (CIT
Section 10Section 14Section 44

Insurance business, even when the assessee has claimed exempted income u/s. 10 of the I.T. Act and has also itself made some disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the return? 3 Therefore at present the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of coordinate bench

DCIT, CC 1(1), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal for AY 2014-15 filed by ld

ITA 2046/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, Edelweiss House Off Cst Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Edelweiss House Off Cst Bldg., (Annexe0, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe0, Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) 3 Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce2709H Assessee By : Shri. Ravikant Pathak Revenue By : Shri. Suresh Periasamy, (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2022. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri. Suresh Periasamy, (CIT
Section 10Section 14Section 44

Insurance business, even when the assessee has claimed exempted income u/s. 10 of the I.T. Act and has also itself made some disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the return? 3 Therefore at present the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of coordinate bench

Mr. Manu Mahmud Parpia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 14(1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1514/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri, Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1514/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mr. Manu Mahmud Parpia बिधम/ Ito-14(1)(2) 72, Tenerife Little Gibbs Room No. 457, Aayakar Vs. Road No.2, Malabar Hill, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpp8377R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopal Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee (Individual) Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.04.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: - 1) “The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Conforming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Disallowing Rs. 5,12,121/- Out Of Expenses U/S 14A. Your Appellant Submits That No Expenditure Has Been Incurred For The Purpose Of Earning Exempt Income & The Entire Disallowance Of Rs. 5,12,121/- Ought To Be Deleted. Without Prejudice To The Above, Your Appellant Submits That The Disallowance Is Excessive & Ought To Be Reduced Substantially.

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 10(33)Section 14ASection 234B

case of CIT Vs. Walfort Shares & Stock brokers Pvt. Ltd. SC (326 ITR 1). Moreover, we note that the AO had resorted to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act for previous AY. 2012-13 and earlier AY. 2011-12 and for earlier AY. 2009-10 wherein the facts ... that the expenses which have not been claimed or debited to the P & L account could not be disallowed and, hence, deleted the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D. In view of the facts of the case and following the decision of my predecessors, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer

Ring Plus Aqua Ltd., Nashik vs. Dy CIT -CC-8(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1062/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1059/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1062/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1061/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ring Plus Aqua Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-8(1) 6Th Floor, Aayakar D-3/4, Stice, Sinnar Shirdi Vs. Road, Musalgaon, Nashik- Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. 422003, Maharashtra, India.

For Appellant: Shri Hitan ChandeFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 14A

assessee has received exempt dividend income to the tune of Rs.53,50,483/- and the AO asked the assessee as to why the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 (hereinafter “the Rules”) be not resorted ... Further, the appellant has submitted that only such investments should be considered which have yielded exempt income during the year, while computing disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and has placed reliance on the above referred decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs Anand

Ring Plus Aqua Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-8(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1061/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1059/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1062/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1061/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ring Plus Aqua Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-8(1) 6Th Floor, Aayakar D-3/4, Stice, Sinnar Shirdi Vs. Road, Musalgaon, Nashik- Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. 422003, Maharashtra, India.

For Appellant: Shri Hitan ChandeFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 14A

assessee has received exempt dividend income to the tune of Rs.53,50,483/- and the AO asked the assessee as to why the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 (hereinafter “the Rules”) be not resorted ... Further, the appellant has submitted that only such investments should be considered which have yielded exempt income during the year, while computing disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and has placed reliance on the above referred decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs Anand

Silver Spark Apparel Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-8(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1060/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1059/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1062/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1061/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ring Plus Aqua Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-8(1) 6Th Floor, Aayakar D-3/4, Stice, Sinnar Shirdi Vs. Road, Musalgaon, Nashik- Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. 422003, Maharashtra, India.

For Appellant: Shri Hitan ChandeFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 14A

assessee has received exempt dividend income to the tune of Rs.53,50,483/- and the AO asked the assessee as to why the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 (hereinafter “the Rules”) be not resorted ... Further, the appellant has submitted that only such investments should be considered which have yielded exempt income during the year, while computing disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and has placed reliance on the above referred decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs Anand

Ring Plus Aqua Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-8(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1059/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1059/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1062/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1061/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ring Plus Aqua Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-8(1) 6Th Floor, Aayakar D-3/4, Stice, Sinnar Shirdi Vs. Road, Musalgaon, Nashik- Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. 422003, Maharashtra, India.

For Appellant: Shri Hitan ChandeFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 14A

assessee has received exempt dividend income to the tune of Rs.53,50,483/- and the AO asked the assessee as to why the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 (hereinafter “the Rules”) be not resorted ... Further, the appellant has submitted that only such investments should be considered which have yielded exempt income during the year, while computing disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and has placed reliance on the above referred decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs Anand