“disallowance u/s 14A”

Marvel Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1486/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Marvel Industries Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-2(2)(2) 20 Podar Chambers, Sa Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Brelvi Road, Bombay, Mumbai. Mumbai-400023. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm3243J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Haridas Bhat Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: By Preferring This Appeal, The Assessee/Appellant Has Challenged The Impugned Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)/ Nfac, Delhi Passed On 28Th March 2022. It Was Brought To Our Notice That The Cit(A) Has Passed An Ex-Parte Order Without Considering The Merits Of The Action Of Ao By Observing As Follows: “5. During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings, Notice For Hearing Was Issued To Appellant On 09.08.2019, 18.10.2019, 22.12.2021 & 03.03.2022. All These Notices Were Issued Through Itba System Via E- Mail Id Provided In The Itba Portal. In Response, Appellant Failed To File Any Submission In Support Of The Grounds Raised By Him Nor Did Appellant Seek For Any Adjournment. 6. It Is Clear From The Above That Appellant Has Been Granted Opportunities To Represent Its Case In The Appellate Proceedings But Has Failed To Make Any Submissions In Support Of The Grounds Of Appeal Filed By Appellant. Appellant Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal

Mumbai ( the “AO” ) . The Id. AO has for various reasons stated in the assessment order made the following additions / disallowances; 1. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 85,346/- 2. Disallowance of Prior Period Expenditure 5,81,498/- 3. Disallowance of Freight Charges u/s ... additions / disallowances, the appellants have filed this appeal for your Honours’ kind consideration. In this connection the appellants have to submit the following; Disallowance u/s 14A: The appellants have made Investments in the Shares and Securities during the past years. As such the Investments do not have any nexus with

JCIT (OSD)-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3742/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3743/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3744/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Jcit (Osd)-8(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Royal Western India Room No. 625, 6Th Floor, Turf Club Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Mahalaxmi Race Course, Karve Marg, Mumbai- Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400020. 400034. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr8519H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sumit Lalchandani Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Revenue Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai Dated 27.02.2019 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Respectively. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Are Similar Especially Ground No. 1 & 2 For All The Years (Ay. 2013-14 To Ay. 2015-16) & The Additional Ground Is Only For Appeals Pertaining To Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Which Is Related To Disallowance Made U/S 14A Of The

wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that when the assessee did not earn any exempt income, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is warranted. This view has been followed by this Tribunal in the recent decision in the case of CIT Vs. V.K. Raheja Corporate Services ... High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. uphold the action of Ld. CIT(A) that if no exempt income is received by the assessee, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is warranted. Thus, this grounds of appeals of the revenue for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 stands dismissed

JCIT (OSD)-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3742/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3743/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3744/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Jcit (Osd)-8(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Royal Western India Room No. 625, 6Th Floor, Turf Club Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Mahalaxmi Race Course, Karve Marg, Mumbai- Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400020. 400034. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr8519H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sumit Lalchandani Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Revenue Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai Dated 27.02.2019 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Respectively. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Are Similar Especially Ground No. 1 & 2 For All The Years (Ay. 2013-14 To Ay. 2015-16) & The Additional Ground Is Only For Appeals Pertaining To Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Which Is Related To Disallowance Made U/S 14A Of The

wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that when the assessee did not earn any exempt income, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is warranted. This view has been followed by this Tribunal in the recent decision in the case of CIT Vs. V.K. Raheja Corporate Services ... High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. uphold the action of Ld. CIT(A) that if no exempt income is received by the assessee, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is warranted. Thus, this grounds of appeals of the revenue for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 stands dismissed

JCIT (OSD)-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3742/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3743/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3744/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Jcit (Osd)-8(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Royal Western India Room No. 625, 6Th Floor, Turf Club Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Mahalaxmi Race Course, Karve Marg, Mumbai- Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400020. 400034. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr8519H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sumit Lalchandani Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Revenue Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai Dated 27.02.2019 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Respectively. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Are Similar Especially Ground No. 1 & 2 For All The Years (Ay. 2013-14 To Ay. 2015-16) & The Additional Ground Is Only For Appeals Pertaining To Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Which Is Related To Disallowance Made U/S 14A Of The

wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that when the assessee did not earn any exempt income, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is warranted. This view has been followed by this Tribunal in the recent decision in the case of CIT Vs. V.K. Raheja Corporate Services ... High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. uphold the action of Ld. CIT(A) that if no exempt income is received by the assessee, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is warranted. Thus, this grounds of appeals of the revenue for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 stands dismissed

Shree Global Tradefin Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

facts & circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in concluding that additional claim of the appellant of reducing the disallowance u/s 14A cannot be entertained. The appellant submits that on the basis of certain facts and figures, it has worked out disallowance ITA. No. 511/Mum/2022 Assessment Year ... following the above decisions of higher courts and that of co-ordinate benches of the tribunal, we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year” (Emphasis Supplied) 10. To the same effect is the decision

Income Tax Officer-17(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idbi Staff Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 17(2)(1), Vs. Idbi Staff Co-Op 1St Floor, Room No. 115, Credit Society Ltd., Kautilya Bhavan G Block, 1St Floor, Idbi Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400005. Mumbai -400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaai0083Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Ujjawal Kumar.Dr Respondent By : Mr. Mandar Vaidya .Ar Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

eligible for claim and denied the deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(d) of the Act of Rs.4,78,74,030 and also made disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of Rs. 7,55,652/- and assessed the total income of Rs.4,86,29,682/- and passed the order u/s

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lyka Labs Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 10(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Lyka Labs Ltd., 5Th Floor, Room No. Ground Floor, Spencer 509, Aayakar Bhavan, Bldg, 30, Forjett Street. Churchgate, Grant Road(West), Mumbai -400036. Mumbai -400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0820G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt.Shailja Rai. Cit Dr Respondent By : Shri .Jayesh Dadia. Ar Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -17, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Rs.29,63,42,500/-(ii) the depreciation claimed by the assessee of Rs.2,49,373/- was disallowed.(iii)Similarly the A.O has made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act Lyka Labs Ltd., Mumbai. which worked out of Rs. 17,56,637/-.(iv) the A.O has disallowed the interest claim

Rakeshkumar Wadhawan, Mumbai vs. ACIT- CC 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Rakesh Kumar Vs. Acit, Central Circle 5(4) Wadhawan, Room No. 1927, 19Th Thar & Co., 203, Capri Floor, Air India Building, Building, Opp. Hdil Nariman Point, Towers, Anant Kanekar Mumbai – 400 021 Marg, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051

Shri Rakesh Kumar Wadhawan Vs. ACIT, CC-5(4) Rs. 8,76,62,70,208/-. The A.O has computed disallowance u/s 14A r.w.rule 8D to the amount of Rs.4,44,16,024/-. During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed submission ... 14A were present in the case of the assessee and A.O had duly recorded his satisfaction for rejecting the claim of nil disallowance u/s 14A made by the assessee. After taking into consideration the detail filed by the assessee the ld. CIT(A) directed the assessee to furnish working

Unimark Remedies Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer and Cross Objection of the assessee, are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Co No. 320/Mum/2018 (Arising In Ita No.3716/Mum/2017 For A.Y. 2010-11)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CITA erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in adding the disallowance u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D amounting to Rs. 67,32,421/-in computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the IT Act,1961 on the grounds

DCIT 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Unimark Remedies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer and Cross Objection of the assessee, are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Co No. 320/Mum/2018 (Arising In Ita No.3716/Mum/2017 For A.Y. 2010-11)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CITA erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in adding the disallowance u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D amounting to Rs. 67,32,421/-in computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the IT Act,1961 on the grounds

M/S. Kmme Impex Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(3) (2), Mumbai

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

trader in shares. During the year under consideration, it received dividend income of Rs. 24,13,886/-, but did not make any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. When questioned on this aspect by the AO, the assessee submitted that sec.14A is not applicable to a share trader ... yield dividend income should be excluded while computing average value of investments. In the alternative, the Ld A.R further submitted that the disallowance u/s 14A should not exceed the amount of exempt income. 4. The Ld A.R further submitted that the AO was not correct in law in adopting

M/S. Burlington Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gains/losses as income of the assessees in the respective years. Since these assessees have made investments in shares, the AO also made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in all these years in the hands of these assessees herein. It is pertinent to note that the search officials ... unearth any incriminating material warranting addition of capital gains/capital losses or disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 5. Before Ld CIT(A), these assessees contended the search officials did not unearth any incriminating material during the course of search relating to the capital loss/capital gains declared by them

M/S. Burlington Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gains/losses as income of the assessees in the respective years. Since these assessees have made investments in shares, the AO also made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in all these years in the hands of these assessees herein. It is pertinent to note that the search officials ... unearth any incriminating material warranting addition of capital gains/capital losses or disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 5. Before Ld CIT(A), these assessees contended the search officials did not unearth any incriminating material during the course of search relating to the capital loss/capital gains declared by them

M/S. Burlington Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gains/losses as income of the assessees in the respective years. Since these assessees have made investments in shares, the AO also made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in all these years in the hands of these assessees herein. It is pertinent to note that the search officials ... unearth any incriminating material warranting addition of capital gains/capital losses or disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 5. Before Ld CIT(A), these assessees contended the search officials did not unearth any incriminating material during the course of search relating to the capital loss/capital gains declared by them

M/S. Bazigar Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gains/losses as income of the assessees in the respective years. Since these assessees have made investments in shares, the AO also made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in all these years in the hands of these assessees herein. It is pertinent to note that the search officials ... unearth any incriminating material warranting addition of capital gains/capital losses or disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 5. Before Ld CIT(A), these assessees contended the search officials did not unearth any incriminating material during the course of search relating to the capital loss/capital gains declared by them

M/S. Bazigar Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gains/losses as income of the assessees in the respective years. Since these assessees have made investments in shares, the AO also made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in all these years in the hands of these assessees herein. It is pertinent to note that the search officials ... unearth any incriminating material warranting addition of capital gains/capital losses or disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 5. Before Ld CIT(A), these assessees contended the search officials did not unearth any incriminating material during the course of search relating to the capital loss/capital gains declared by them

M/S. Bazigar Trading P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gains/losses as income of the assessees in the respective years. Since these assessees have made investments in shares, the AO also made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in all these years in the hands of these assessees herein. It is pertinent to note that the search officials ... unearth any incriminating material warranting addition of capital gains/capital losses or disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 5. Before Ld CIT(A), these assessees contended the search officials did not unearth any incriminating material during the course of search relating to the capital loss/capital gains declared by them

Adenium Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, Circle-5, Mumbai.

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2017-18

since the AO had passed the order of assessment after making specific inquiry in connection with the basis of quantification of suo motu disallowance u/s. 14A of Act and after due application of mind and on consideration of submissions made by the appellant, accepted the said basis of disallowance ... issuing following notice: “On a perusal of the records, it is observed that the scrutiny assessment was completed without making any disallowance u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D and accepting the disallowance offered by the assessee of 4 M/s. Adenium Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Rs.3,31,596/- ignoring the fact that