“disallowance u/s 14A”

DCIT- Circle- 14 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ratio of average investments in shares} the average total investment of the company and an amount of 229,85,107may be disallowed u/s 14A(1) The Assessee claimed that Rule Man 8D should not be invoked. 9. The Ld. AO rejected the contention of the assessee and made disallowance u/s ... business Average Investments 3545,62,17,910 0.5% Of Average Investments Rs. 17,72,81,090 Total Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D 17,72,81,090 10. On further appeal, the Ld. FFA following the decision of the Tribunal in earlier years deleted the disallowance made

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

In the result all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ratio of average investments in shares} the average total investment of the company and an amount of 229,85,107may be disallowed u/s 14A(1) The Assessee claimed that Rule Man 8D should not be invoked. 9. The Ld. AO rejected the contention of the assessee and made disallowance u/s ... business Average Investments 3545,62,17,910 0.5% Of Average Investments Rs. 17,72,81,090 Total Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D 17,72,81,090 10. On further appeal, the Ld. FFA following the decision of the Tribunal in earlier years deleted the disallowance made

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

In the result all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ratio of average investments in shares} the average total investment of the company and an amount of 229,85,107may be disallowed u/s 14A(1) The Assessee claimed that Rule Man 8D should not be invoked. 9. The Ld. AO rejected the contention of the assessee and made disallowance u/s ... business Average Investments 3545,62,17,910 0.5% Of Average Investments Rs. 17,72,81,090 Total Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D 17,72,81,090 10. On further appeal, the Ld. FFA following the decision of the Tribunal in earlier years deleted the disallowance made

ACIT- CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. Shoppers Stop Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income M/S Shoppers Stop Limited, Tax, Central Circle-4(2), 5Th Floor, Umanag Tower, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air Vs. Malad Link Road, Mindspace, India Building, Nariman Point, Malad (West), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aabcs 4383 A Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Kailash Kanojia, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Sathe & Aasavari Kadam, Ars Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2022

profit and loss account does not because expenditure was debited to profit and loss account does not entitle for disallowance u/s 14 for disallowance u/s 14A. Thirdly, no disallowance u/s 14A , no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should have been made hould have been made if no exempt income ... Rule 8D is, therefore, directed to be deleted. therefore, directed to be deleted.” 5.2 Further, the Ld. CIT(A) held that since disallowance u/s 14A Further, the Ld. CIT(A) held that since disallowance u/s 14A Further, the Ld. CIT(A) held that since disallowance u/s 14A was deleted

ACIT - CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. Shoppers Stop Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income M/S Shoppers Stop Limited, Tax, Central Circle-4(2), 5Th Floor, Umanag Tower, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air Vs. Malad Link Road, Mindspace, India Building, Nariman Point, Malad (West), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aabcs 4383 A Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Kailash Kanojia, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Sathe & Aasavari Kadam, Ars Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2022

profit and loss account does not because expenditure was debited to profit and loss account does not entitle for disallowance u/s 14 for disallowance u/s 14A. Thirdly, no disallowance u/s 14A , no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should have been made hould have been made if no exempt income ... Rule 8D is, therefore, directed to be deleted. therefore, directed to be deleted.” 5.2 Further, the Ld. CIT(A) held that since disallowance u/s 14A Further, the Ld. CIT(A) held that since disallowance u/s 14A Further, the Ld. CIT(A) held that since disallowance u/s 14A was deleted

ACIT CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Shoppers Stop Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income M/S Shoppers Stop Limited, Tax, Central Circle-4(2), 5Th Floor, Umanag Tower, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air Vs. Malad Link Road, Mindspace, India Building, Nariman Point, Malad (West), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aabcs 4383 A Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Kailash Kanojia, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Sathe & Aasavari Kadam, Ars Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2022

profit and loss account does not because expenditure was debited to profit and loss account does not entitle for disallowance u/s 14 for disallowance u/s 14A. Thirdly, no disallowance u/s 14A , no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should have been made hould have been made if no exempt income ... Rule 8D is, therefore, directed to be deleted. therefore, directed to be deleted.” 5.2 Further, the Ld. CIT(A) held that since disallowance u/s 14A Further, the Ld. CIT(A) held that since disallowance u/s 14A Further, the Ld. CIT(A) held that since disallowance u/s 14A was deleted

Aachman Vanijya Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the result, the both appeals filed by the assessee filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Aachman Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle-8(4), Main Building, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, West Bengal-700 001. Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacca 5165 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2022

interest on income the Assessing Officer made addition for interest on income-tax refund of ₹4,37,130/ 4,37,130/- and disallowance u/s 14A amounting to and disallowance u/s 14A amounting to ₹14,51,111/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but Aggrieved ... discussed the facts of the case and computed. The Ld. AO has duly discussed the facts of the case and then made said disallowance u/s 14A of the Act w Rule 8D. It is also then made said disallowance u/s 14A of the Act w Rule 8D. It is also

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited Addl. Cit, Range 7(1) V. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai Pan: Aaach2914F Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue Represented By : Shri Rajneesh Yadav

disallowance after invoking rule 8D but without recording satisfactory reasons establishing the incorrectness of its suo-moto disallowance. 63. Ld.AR contended that disallowance u/s 14A cannot be made where no satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer as to the incorrectness of the claim of the Assessee that

Jignesh Jaswantrai Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax-27(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

erred in observing in para 5.3 on page 10 as under: - "it is a fact that the Appellant has given the working of disallowance u/s. 14A before the AO it was accepted by the AO. Therefore, during the appellate proceedings, the appellant cannot go back from what was accepted during ... interest free funds are more than total of non business assets. It is a fact that the appellant has given the working of disallowance u/s 14A before the AQ and it was accepted by the AO. Therefore, during the appellate proceedings, the appellant cannot go back from what was accepted

The Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Wadhwa Construction and Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance of Rs. 21,08,798/- u/s. 14A to the tune of Rs.65,197/-even when the AO rightly worked out the disallowance u/s 14A as per the rule 8D(ii) of Income tax Rule, 1962. (7) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in restricting the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D to the extent of the Wadhwa Construction & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd exempt income earned by the assessee during the year under consideration without appreciating the CBDT Circular No. 05/2014 dated 11.02.2014 wherein, it has been clarified that Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A provides

ACIT Central Cir 5(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Wadhwa Construction & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance of Rs. 21,08,798/- u/s. 14A to the tune of Rs.65,197/-even when the AO rightly worked out the disallowance u/s 14A as per the rule 8D(ii) of Income tax Rule, 1962. (7) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in restricting the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D to the extent of the Wadhwa Construction & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd exempt income earned by the assessee during the year under consideration without appreciating the CBDT Circular No. 05/2014 dated 11.02.2014 wherein, it has been clarified that Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A provides

M/S Wadhwa Construction and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance of Rs. 21,08,798/- u/s. 14A to the tune of Rs.65,197/-even when the AO rightly worked out the disallowance u/s 14A as per the rule 8D(ii) of Income tax Rule, 1962. (7) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in restricting the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D to the extent of the Wadhwa Construction & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd exempt income earned by the assessee during the year under consideration without appreciating the CBDT Circular No. 05/2014 dated 11.02.2014 wherein, it has been clarified that Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A provides

M/S Wadhwa Construction and Infrastruction Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance of Rs. 21,08,798/- u/s. 14A to the tune of Rs.65,197/-even when the AO rightly worked out the disallowance u/s 14A as per the rule 8D(ii) of Income tax Rule, 1962. (7) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in restricting the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D to the extent of the Wadhwa Construction & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd exempt income earned by the assessee during the year under consideration without appreciating the CBDT Circular No. 05/2014 dated 11.02.2014 wherein, it has been clarified that Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A provides

ACIT Cent. Cir 5(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Wadhwa Construction & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance of Rs. 21,08,798/- u/s. 14A to the tune of Rs.65,197/-even when the AO rightly worked out the disallowance u/s 14A as per the rule 8D(ii) of Income tax Rule, 1962. (7) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in restricting the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D to the extent of the Wadhwa Construction & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd exempt income earned by the assessee during the year under consideration without appreciating the CBDT Circular No. 05/2014 dated 11.02.2014 wherein, it has been clarified that Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A provides

State Bank of India (Sucessor to Erstwhile State Bank of Indore), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

appeal: - “Grounds of Appeal 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts and circumstances of the case confirming the disallowance u/s 14A made by the assessing officer. 1.1 The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Apex court in Maxopp Investments ... penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). 3. At the time of hearing, with regard to Ground No. 1 which is in respect of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act, Ld. AR submitted the details of interest free funds and investment earning exempt income as under: - Amount Particulars (Rs. in crores