“disallowance u/s 14A”

DCIT- 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

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

3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 of the IT Act without appreciating that the disallowance u/s 14A has to be mandatorily calculated as per rule 8D of IT Rules and no discretion is available with the A.O for estimated disallowances? 2. Whether on the facts ... Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities Ltd. 313 ITR 340, no indirect or direct interest expenditure is disallowable. v. No disallowance u/s 14A could be made when investment in shares is held as stock in trade. vi. Only those securities on which tax-free dividend are earned

DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

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

3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 of the IT Act without appreciating that the disallowance u/s 14A has to be mandatorily calculated as per rule 8D of IT Rules and no discretion is available with the A.O for estimated disallowances? 2. Whether on the facts ... Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities Ltd. 313 ITR 340, no indirect or direct interest expenditure is disallowable. v. No disallowance u/s 14A could be made when investment in shares is held as stock in trade. vi. Only those securities on which tax-free dividend are earned

Dy CIT-CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to rework the computation of disallowance u/s. 14A after netting off the interest expenses with interest earned by the assessee, without appreciating that Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 does ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in directing the AO to rework the computation of disallowance u/s. 14A 9 after reducing the interest paid u/s. 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was included in the 2 interest expenses, without appreciating

Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - CC-1(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalessel Mining & Industries Limited Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Camac Street, Kolkata, West Bengal-700017 Pan: Aaace6607L ...... Appellant Vs. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Yogesh Thar Respondent By : Sh. Amol B. Kirtane Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 05.02.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) {Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)} Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of The Claim Of Carbon Credit Income As Capital Receipt Of Rs. 10,20,587/-. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Common Expenses Of Rs. 59,27,000/-.

Credit treated as Revenue income u/s 28 Rs. 102, 05, 87/- (v) Disallowance of claim u/s 40(a) Rs. 4, 35,810/- (vi) Disallowance U/s 14A added to book profit U/s 115JB also Rs. 35, 88, 82,480/- 4. Against this order of Assessing Officer (AO), assessee preferred an appeal

Teksons P. Ltd, Thane vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Us, The Preliminary Ground Raised Is That There Is A Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice Committed By The Ld. Cit(A) While Dismissing The Appeal Of 2 M/S. Teksons Pvt. Ltd.

book profits of Rs. 11,66,77,218/- u/s 115JB of the Act after making the following additions/disallowances :- a) Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act – Rs 5,49,353/- b) Dividend from Cooling Systems Flexible Pte Ltd – Rs 4,27,21,681/- c) Difference in AIR reconciliation

Radhika Dipen Mehta, Mumbai vs. The ITO 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

also drew our attention to the decision of the Co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal in ITA. No.4677/Del/2009 wherein similar disallowance u/s 14A of the Act was made by the AO and A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Radhika Dipan Mehta consequently penalty proceedings were initiated and levied u/s ... delete the same. The Tribunal was pleased to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act on the ground that the issue relating to the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act was debatable. 4. In the light

Radhika Dipen Mehta, Mumbai vs. The ITO 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

also drew our attention to the decision of the Co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal in ITA. No.4677/Del/2009 wherein similar disallowance u/s 14A of the Act was made by the AO and A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Radhika Dipan Mehta consequently penalty proceedings were initiated and levied u/s ... delete the same. The Tribunal was pleased to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act on the ground that the issue relating to the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act was debatable. 4. In the light

Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Andhra Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1588/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1589/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jcit (Osd), Cc-7(2), M/S Andhra Expressway Ltd. R. No. 655, Aayakar बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gammon Bhavan, M. K. Road, House, Veer Savarkar Vs. Mumbai-400020 Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadca3577E (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld. Ar : सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 01.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 29.06.2021, Passed By 2

Ground no. 8, relating to disallowance made u/s 14A, it has been admitted by both the parties that no disallowance u/s 14A has been made by the AO in his assessment order and ground taken is incorrect, therefore this ground is dismissed as infructuous. 16. As noted above, the grounds

Edelweiss Commodities Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

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

further noticed that the assessee has not 9 Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Limited (Earlier known as M/s. Edelweiss Commodities Services Limited) made any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Hence the AO computed the disallowance as per Rule 8D, which worked out to Rs.4,71,81,176/- and added ... profit from a partnership firm amounting to Rs.1,62,708/-. Accordingly, the Ld A.R contended that there is no requirement of making any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and also u/s 115JB of the Act, in the absence of exempt income. 13. We heard Ld D.R on this issue

Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.867/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) M/S. Savita Oil बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-47 Technologies Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Road, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs7934A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiro Rai Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2022 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(A)-38, Mumbai Dated 21.11.2013 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice 2. That The Following Grounds Raised By The Assessee Is Neither Being Pressed Nor Does They Survive For The Reasons Given Therein As Under: - “(I) Ground.4- Disallowance U/S 14A In View Of Order Giving Effect To Cit(A) Order & Order U/S 154, Not Pressed Qua Balance Disallowance Of Rs.7,74,722/- (Ii) Ground No. 5 Disallowance As Capital Expenditure Since Depreciation (Ground No.6) Allowed, Not Pressed. (Iii) Ground No. 6 – Allowance Of Depreciation In Order U/S 154, Ao Has Allowed Depreciation. Hence, Does Not Survive.

following grounds raised by the assessee is neither being pressed nor does they survive for the reasons given therein as under: - “(i) Ground.4- Disallowance u/s 14A In view of order giving effect to CIT(A) order and order u/s 154, not pressed qua balance disallowance of Rs.7

Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent Cir -1(2), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [CIT (A)] dated 26th November, 2021, confirming the disallowance u/s 14A of The Income Tax Act [ The Act] read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules ... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 47, Mumbai (hereinafter referred as CIT(A)) erred in confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) without recording his satisfaction having regard to accounts of the Appellant. (b) The CIT(A) erred in confirming

Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Cir-1(2), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [CIT (A)] dated 26th November, 2021, confirming the disallowance u/s 14A of The Income Tax Act [ The Act] read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules ... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 47, Mumbai (hereinafter referred as CIT(A)) erred in confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) without recording his satisfaction having regard to accounts of the Appellant. (b) The CIT(A) erred in confirming

Eldelweiss Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 4(1) (1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [CIT (A)] dated 26th November, 2021, confirming the disallowance u/s 14A of The Income Tax Act [ The Act] read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules ... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 47, Mumbai (hereinafter referred as CIT(A)) erred in confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) without recording his satisfaction having regard to accounts of the Appellant. (b) The CIT(A) erred in confirming

DCIT Cent, Cir-2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14

assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.1,45,29,536/- and claimed as exempt in the computation of income and worked out disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs.5,16,767/.-Whereas the Assessing Officer applied the provisions of Rule8D(2) and computed the disallowance u/s 4 M/s Vinati

Mobile Trading & Investment Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Circle-3 (2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalmobile Trading & Vs. Ito, Circle – 3(2)(2) Investment Pvt Ltd., Room No. 673, 6Th 141, Mittal Tower, C- Floor, Aayakar Wing, Nariman Point, Bhavan, Mk Road Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccm1419N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Dinkle Hariya.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

filed the submissions and computation of disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The A.O. has not accepted the explanations and worked out disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D(2) (ii) &(iii) of the I T Rules of Rs. 4,23,631/-and assessed the total income ... against 60% made by the A.O and has confirmed the additions of hotel and boarding expenses, foreign travel expenses and disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and partly allowed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal

Mr. Ranjit Gobindram Malkani, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (3)(1), Mumbai

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

interest on bonds and long term capital gains. The A.O. observed that the assessee has received the dividend income and has not made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Whereas, the A.O has dealt on the applicable provisions and computed disallowance U/sec the Sec. 14A r.w.r ... appeal, submissions of the assessee and findings of the scrutiny assessment. But the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition in respect of the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and granted relief in other grounds of appeal and partly allowed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)order

Gautam Enterprises, Thane vs. Pr. CIT -1, Thane

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Pr. Commissioner Of Income Gautam Enterprises Tax-1, Office No. 1B, 1St Floor, ‘B’ Wing, 6Th Floor, Shiv Krupa Chs Ltd, Ashar It Park Road 16Z, Vs. Charai, Thane, Wagle Ind Estate, Mumbai-400 601 Thane 400 604 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabfg0439L Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 31.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2022

depreciation. He further found that assessee has received share of profit from another firm and the learned Assessing Officer failed to invoke the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 06. The learned PCIT was of the view that in the reassessment order passed by the learned assessing officer he should

M/S. First Light Properties P. Ltd.(Earstwhile Known As M/S. Sumer Builders P. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. The DCIT, CC, 5(3), Mumbai

In the result ground of appeal raised by assessee is dismissed and stand of AO is confirmed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S First Light Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Known As M/S Sumer Builders Pvt. Ltd.) 205, Commerce House, 140, Nagindas Master Road, For, Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aaacs7947P ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(3), Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Nishit Gandhi Respondent By : Sh. Sandip Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

Balance Sheet of the assessee that the assessee company has shown investments amounting to the tune of Rs.5,48,55,554/-. However, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act has been made by the assessee 13 company. The assessee was show caused as to why the disallowance u/s 14A

Future Polyesters Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and 2014-15

Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by LdCIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A to the amount of exempted dividend income. 4.3 The next issue contested in AY 2011-12 relates to the disallowance of depreciation claim of Rs.95

Futura Polyesters Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT 5 (1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and 2014-15

Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by LdCIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A to the amount of exempted dividend income. 4.3 The next issue contested in AY 2011-12 relates to the disallowance of depreciation claim of Rs.95