“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M/S P N Writer & Co Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1046/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1046/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit Cir-8(2)(1) M/S P. N. Writer & Co. R. No. 624, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 105, Writer, Dr. B. Bhavan, Ambedkar Road, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 033 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacp5966B (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Priyesh Gansotta, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shambhu Yadav, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 10.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 10.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 22.03.2022, Passed By National Faceless

For Appellant: Shri Priyesh GansottaFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav

Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is Rs. 9,36,209/-. 3. Now it is well settled that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income which proposition upheld by Hon'ble Delhi Court in Pr. CIT v. Mc Donalds India (P.) Ltd. ITA 725/2018 ... does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained.' 5. Thus, we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A to Rs. 85,439/-. This proposition was annexed in the open court for which representative appeared on behalf of assessee has agreed. Accordingly, the ground

M/S. Atria Power Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 376/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.R Narayana, Addl. CIT

Section 115JSection 14ASection 234

impugned disallowance made deserves to be deleted. 2.1 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income of Rs. 6,22,816/- earned by the appellant and therefore, the disallowance ... income of Rs.6,22,816/- which is exempt under the Income-tax Act 1961, hence, the AO applied sec. 14A and calculated the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.rl 8D. He also observed that when assessee incurred finance cost of Rs.2,00,67,165/-, in this regard the assessee has asked

M/S. Onmobile Global Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2560/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

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 ... above judgment and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra) we hold that disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) is not warranted in the facts of the instant given case. It is ordered accordingly. Consideration of incorrect amount

M/S Onmobile Global Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 139/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

Dy.C.I;.T.Central Cir6 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reynold Shirting Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2388/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit, Cc – 6(3) Vs. Reynold Shirting Ltd Room No. 1926, 19Th 402, 4Th Floor, Kamla Floor, Air India Bldg, Hub Ns Road No.1 Nariman Point, Juhu Scheme, Vile Mumbai-400021. Parle (W), Mumbai -400049. Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr7055H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Mahita Nair.Dr Respondent By : Ms.Mitalli Gopani.Ar Date Of Hearing 03.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08.08.2022 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) – 54, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms.Mahita Nair.DRFor Respondent: Ms.Mitalli Gopani.AR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance u/s. 14A to the extent of exempt income ignoring the Circular No.5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 which clarifies that even if exempt income has not been earned during the year, Section 14A ... r.w.r 8D are not applicable to the assessee. Whereas, the A.O was not satisfied with the explanations and observed that the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D are to be invoked irrespective of whether dividend is earned or not and computed disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r

DCIT Cent. Cir-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2218/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1970/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19) K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit Central Circle-4(2) Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Room No.1918, Air India Vs. 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Building, Nariman Point- Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), 400021. Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2218/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19) Dcit Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. Room No.1918, Air India Raheja Tower, Plot No. C-30, Vs. Building, Nariman Point- Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Kurla 400021. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack1949H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Smt. Neelam Shukla (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-52, Mumbai Dated 08.09.2021 For The A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla (DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 14A

residential units. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances in case of law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the I. T. Act to the extent of exempt income received by the assessee during the year under consideration without appreciating the Circular No.5

K Raheja Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir-4(2), `Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1970/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla (DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 14A

The Cricket Club of India Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the

ITA 2799/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shivani ChaurasiaFor Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 263

Income Tax (Appeal) [in short “CIT(A”)], order passed u/s 250 of the Act on 14.12.2016. All the additions are deleted except disallowance u/s 14A of the Act amounting to Rs. 8,79,268/- was uphold. The Ld. PCIT passed second order u/s 263 of the Act dated

Welspun Steel Ltd. (Successor in Interest to Welspun Energy Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2786/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A rwr 8D(2)(iii) to the extent of exempt income earned during the year, not appreciating the fact that the CBDT circular no. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 does ... mention that the disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act should be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned during the year. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A

Datalink Informatics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 09, Mumbai

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

ITA 571/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

appeal are dismissed. 10. The assessee has also filed an application seeking admission of the following additional ground:– “ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 1: DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT CANNOT EXCEED EXEMPT INCOME 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... disallowance u/s 14 of the Act to the extent of exempt income earned by the Appellant. 2. The Appellant prays that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act be restricted to the exempt income earned by it.” 11. The learned A.R. submitted that the assessee suo–moto made a disallowance

ACIT Cent. Cir 5(40, Mumbai vs. M/S. Wadhwa Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 148/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 The Asstt. Commissioner M/S. Wadhwa Group Of Income Tax, Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 5(4), 301 Platina, Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Plot C-59, Vs. Air India Building, G Block, Nariman Point, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 098 Pan: Aaccv3961G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O. Rajora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14A

those investments on which 2 M/s. Wadhwa Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd. exempt income has been earned have to be considered for computing the disallowance u/s. 14A even when the AO rightly worked out the disallowance u/s. 14A as per the rule 8D(ii) of Income tax Rule ... facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) erred in restricting the disallowance U/s. 14A r.w.s. 8D to the extent of the 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

ACIT, Central Circle1(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Peninsula Land Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5632/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahaman, Accountat Member Ita No. 5632 & 5633/Mum/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Acit, Cc – 1(3) Vs. M/S Peninsula Land 905, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg, No. 2, Peninsula (Annexe), M.K .Road, Spenta, Mathuradas Mumbai – 400020. Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Parel, Mumbai- 400013. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact5173A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Aditya Rai. Dr Respondent By : Shri. Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Two Appeals Filed The By The Revenue Against The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai Passed U/S 153A R.W.S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri. Aditya Rai. DRFor Respondent: Shri. Vijay Mehta.AR

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

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO, while computing total income under normal provisions, erred by making disallowance u/s 14A at Rs. 4,67,40,503/- by ignoring suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 1,28,47,817/- made by the appellant at the time of filing

Unique Estates Dev. Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT Cent. Cir-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2110/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2110/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Unique Estates Dev. Co. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(1) Pvt. Ltd. Room No.1906, 19Th Vs. Construction House-B, 2Nd Floor, Air India Bldg, Floor, 623, Linking Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Khar (W), Mumbai-400052. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu0699N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjay B. Sawant Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U. Matkarni सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2022 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. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai Dated 26.10.2021 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is As Under: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, On Issue Of Advancing Of Interest Free Loans Of Rs.4,68,220/- & So Called Bogus Purchases Of Rs.5,84,076/-.” 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Sanjay B. Sawant Brought To Our Notice That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 30.09.2011 Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.12,39,12,768/-. The Scrutiny Assessment Was Completed On 18.03.2014 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing Total Income (Normal Computation) At Rs.21,59,51,554/-

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay B. SawantFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkarni

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

addition of Rs.9,20,38,784/- wherein following additions were made as under: - (i) Interest-free advance/sticky loans ------------Rs.4,88,186 (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D ------------Rs.12,52,396 (iii) Income from operation of mall treated as ‘income from House Property’ instead of ‘Business Income’ hence disallowance of proportionate

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 655/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Asian Paints Ltd., V. Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 6A, Shantinagar 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 V. M/S. Asian Paints Ltd., Centre-1, 29Th Floor 6A, Shantinagar World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Das

Section 115OSection 14A

stock 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A rw. Rule 8D to Rs. 45,12,029/-, without appreciating the facts of the case. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Pantaloon Industries Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5651/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 8(2) Vs. Pantaloon Industries Aayakar Bhavan Ltd, Ground Floor, M.K .Road Knowledge House, Off Mumbai – 400020. Jogeswari Vikroli Link Road, Shyam Nagar, Jogeswari (E) Mumbai – 400060. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp9866D Appellant .. Respondent Pantaloon Industries Ltd Vs. Dcit – 8(2) Ground Floor, Knowledge Aayakar Bhavan House, Off Jogeswari M.K .Road, Vikroli Link Road, Shyam Mumbai – 400 020. Nagar, Jogeswari (E) Mumbai – 400 060. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp9866D Appellant .. Respondent

Section 10(34)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

claim. Finally the A.O. has passed the rectification order by determining the Book profits u/s 115JB of the Act including the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act which worked out to Rs9,98,01,440/- and passed the order u/s 154 of the Act dated 24.04.2013. 4. Aggrieved ... assessee, findings of the A.O and ITA No. 5651 & 5958//Mum/2014 M/s pantaloon Industries Ltd., Mumbai. on the disputed issue with respect to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, the CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the A.O in computing the Book profits u/s 115JB

Mafatlal Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4369/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Arati Vissanji &For Respondent: Nimesh Yadav

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

6357/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2006-07) ITA.NO. 6963 & 6855/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) ITA.NO. 4369 & 4596/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) M/s. Mafatlal Industries Limited disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is restricted to 2% of exempt income and also the decision of the ITAT in assessee’s own case ... case for the A.Y. 2005-06 and decided the issue as under: - “2.7 Ground Nos. 18 to 21 are related with disallowance u/s 14A. The assessee earned exempt income of Rs.13.47 Lacs and submitted that no expenditure was incurred to earn the same. However, Ld.AO estimated the disallowance

Mafatlal Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6963/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Arati Vissanji &For Respondent: Nimesh Yadav

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

Mafatlal Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6085/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Arati Vissanji &For Respondent: Nimesh Yadav

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

M/S. M K Agrotech Private Limited, Mandya vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Mysore

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

ITA 402/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R

Section 14A

dated 14.2.2022 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The assessee is in appeal before us with regard to disallowance u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. None appeared for assessee, even after issuing notice to the assessee. We proceeded to decide the appeal after

M/S. Molecular Connections Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Circle - 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 156/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K. Sheshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., DR

Section 111ASection 143(2)Section 14A

investment. But it is seen by the AO that the assessee has incurred finance cost of Rs.8,29,164/-. Details of computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act were sought from assessee. However, the company did not furnish the details. Hence, disallowance was computed by the AO using ... expenditure claimed by the assessee and the details of the same are captured in the table as below: Sl.No. Particular Amount (Rs.) 1 Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act for non- 44,82,700 disallowance of expenditure incurred towards earning exempt income 2 Disallowance of claim