← 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

Prabhat Prpoperties Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1508/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1508/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Prabhat Properties Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Acit-Central Circle-8(4) Office No.A702, 7Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Everest Nivara Infotech Maharshi Karve Road, Park, Plot No. D/3 Ttc Mumbai-400020. Industrial Area Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai- 400705. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecp5792P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. P. Bairagra (Adv.) Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/05/2022 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)-50, Mumbai Dated 06.08.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Ao U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter (‘The Act’)] (Rectification Of Mistake Apparent On The Face Of Record).

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Bairagra (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

made any suo-moto disallowance in respect of expenditure incurred by it for earning the exempt income, so he computed the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the tune of 2 A.Y. 2012-13 Prabhat Properties Pvt. Ltd. Rs.35,20,456/- at para 4 of the assessment order. However ... Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT-9(1) (ITA. No.5592/Mum/2012, wherein it was held that in such cases, similar to that of assessee, the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, may be restricted to the extent of dividend income]. 4. Later on, the AO invoked his jurisdiction u/s

The Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1907/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranthe Karnataka Bank Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 2(1) Head Office, Mahaveera Circle Mangalore Vs. Kankanady Mangalore 575002 Pan – Aabct5589K Appellant Respondent Dcit, Circle – 2(1) The Karnataka Bank Ltd. Mangalore Head Office, Mahaveera Circle Vs. Kankanady Mangalore 575002 Pan – Aabct5589K Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri S. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Ca Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.05.2022 O R D E R Per: B.R. Baskaran, A.M. These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27-03-2018 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Mangaluru & They Relate To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Banking Company Carrying On Banking Business. The Karnataka Bank Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CA &For Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish
Section 14A

revenue relates to the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act. The AO noticed that the assessee did not make any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act even though it has earned tax free income during the year under consideration. When questioned, the assessee submitted that it has got cost ... Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce vs. DCIT (328 ITR 81) and certain other decisions, held that the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D should be computed in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs.51.44 crores u/s 14A r.w.r