“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

Navin Fluorine International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed while for the appeals of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5301/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)

Special Bench decision, we direct the Assessing Officer to re-compute the disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii) accordingly. However, in any case the disallowance u/s 14A should not exceed exempt income. In this case the exempt income reported by the assessee is ₹. 28,89,600/-, therefore the disallowance should

M/S. Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2556/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R

Section 143(3)

assessee has received dividend income from investments made in various mutual funds and claimed the same as exempt. The assessee also made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act by allocating some expenses as relatable to the exempt earned by the assessee. Since the quantum of investment was more than

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Chaitanya Properties Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

ITA 618/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Dr. Manjunath Karkihally, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar, Advocate

Section 153ASection 153C

Income from Long term Capital Gains (LTCG); (iv) Rs. 84,92,10,510/- made to Income from Short term Capital Gains (STCG). (v) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.7,91,031/-. 20. He submitted that the AO has in the assessments order concluded that the Developer has completed development and has handed ... Income from Long Term Capital Gains at Rs.71,90,45,278/-, Income from Short Term Capital Gains at Rs.84,92,10,510/- & Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.7,91,031/-. 22. In the assessment order for the A.Y. 2010-11, the AO has concluded that the sum of Rs.100 crores received

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Chaitanya Properties Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

ITA 617/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Dr. Manjunath Karkihally, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar, Advocate

Section 153ASection 153C

Hinduja Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Range -7(1)(2) (Earlier DCIT 6(1)), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal of assessee is dismissed and order of Ld

ITA 7154/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalhinduja Finance Ltd. 171, Hinduja House, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 Pan: Aagca0533R ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit, Range-7(1)(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ruturaj Gurjar Respondent By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/05/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 05.09.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010- 11. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming: I) The Disallowance Made U/S.14A Of The Income Tax Act At Rs.7, 06,985/- As Against Disallowance Of Rs.2, 52,536/- As Computed By The Appellant. The Disallowance Made Of Rs.4, 54,449/- May Please Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Sh. B.K. Bagchi, CIT-DR

Section 14Section 14A

raised in the ground of appeal. In the ground of appeal, the appellant has only challenged the action of the AO in making disallowance u/s 14A in respect of the stock in trade. The issue of making disallowance in respect of the stock in trade is covered against the appellant ... 7154/Mum/2019, AY 2010-11 6. Appellant’s submission during the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT (A) is as under: 1. “Regarding disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.4, 40,198/- as against Rs.2, 52,536/- made by the assessee. The AO has made a further addition of Rs.1

Fouress Engineering (India)Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-5(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1427/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Fouress Engineering (India) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Pvt. Ltd., Tax-5(1)(2), 4Th Floor, Mahalaxmi Chambers, 22, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacf 5897 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Jeevraj P. Jain &For Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR

total income at Rs.9,13,75,690/- after making certain additions/disallowances. The additions made included prior period expenses of Rs.11,80,816/- and disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.6,51,056/-. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved with the additions sustained

DCIT 10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jyothy Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 7280/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhacit-10(2)(1) Vs. M/S Jyothy Laboratories R. No. 216-A, Aayakar Ltd., Ujala House, Ram Bhavan, M.K. Road, Krishna Mandir Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl3167F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: J.D. Mistry, Priyanka Jain &For Respondent: Achal Sharma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(29)(BA)Section 80I

deduction u/s 80IB & 80IC of the Act. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue stand dismissed. Ground Nos. 3 & 4: (Deleting disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T.Act 9 ITA No.7280/Mum/2016 & C.O. No. 114/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 ACIT, 10(2)(1) Vs. M/s Jyothy Laboratories Ltd. 8. Heard both

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bharat Energy Ventures Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partially allowed

ITA 1511/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)

allowed to be capitalised and is held to be not incurred by the company for the purpose of its project. Further the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income tax Rule works out at at Rs 84,41,808/-. Therefore considering all these issues, the assessee

Lodha Developers Ltd(Formerly Known As Lodha Developers Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2349/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blemacrotech Developers Limited V. Dcit – Central Circle – 7(3) {Erstwhile Lodha Developers Limited} Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Mumbai – 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacl1490J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Central Circle – 7(3) V. Macrotech Developers Limited Room No. 655, 6Th Floor {Erstwhile Lodha Developers Limited} 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Mumbai – 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacl1490J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 37(1)

purpose of Rule 8D(2)(ii). This plea of the assessee is acceptable and the AO is directed to recomputed the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D by computing the net interest debited which is Rs. 14,06,26,480/- for the purpose of computation of interest disallowance. These grounds

Veerath Gopalan Nair, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-3, Kalyan

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

ITA 2468/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Veerath Gopalan Nair, The Asst. Commissioner Of Gr. Floor, Gurumilan Chs Ltd., Opp. Income Tax Circle-3, Tilak Nagar Post Office, Dombivali (E), Vs. Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-421 201. Pan No. Aajpn 9435 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. S.N. Kabra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/05/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR

Section 144Section 14A

disallowance of Shri Veerath Gopalan Nair 11 the expenditure even where taxpayer in a particular year has not earned any exempt income." The disallowance u/s 14A worked out by the A.O. as under: The appellant reiterated again that, he has not received any exempt income during the year

DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Co Op Agricultural Rural Multipurpose Developement Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2962/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaharashtra State Co- Vs. Dcit-(Osd)-1 Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-1(3)(2) Vs. M/S Maharashtra State R. No. 540, 5Th Floor Co-Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Salil Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act finalized on 10.11.2014 and total income was assessed at Rs.33,51,47,728/- after making disallowance u/s 14A, disallowance of provision for overdue interest and disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debt etc. The further remaining facts are discussed while adjudicating

Maharashtra State Co Op Agricultural Rural Multipurpose Developement Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2171/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Salil Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

DCIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Charak Pharma P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, findings of the Ld

ITA 3602/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Manish ShahFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani

Section 80Section 80I

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in adding the disallowance u/s 14A or Rs. 40.993/- to the book profit computed u/s 115 JB of the Act. Ground No.8 Levy of interest under section 234B and 234C

ACIT Circle -7 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Pancard Clubs Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2774/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jasdeep Singh, D.R

Section 14A

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act shall be made only in respect of those investments from which exempt income has been earned during the year whereas CBDT vide circular ... 5/2014 dated 11.2.2014 had clarified that disallowance u/s 14A has to be made even if no exempt income was earned during the year from the investments." 3. Despite issuance of the notice to the assessee company none appeared on behalf of it, so the Bench decided to decide these appeals

ACIT 7(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Pancard Clubs Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2773/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jasdeep Singh, D.R

Section 14A

ACIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Charak Pharma P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, findings of the Ld

ITA 5545/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Manish ShahFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani

Section 80Section 80I

DCIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Charak Pharma P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, findings of the Ld

ITA 6365/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Manish ShahFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani

Section 80Section 80I

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6908/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

adjustments/additions for the purpose of computing book profit u/s 115JA of the Act as made by the /AO on account of (i) Disallowance u/s 14A(ii) Reduction of deduction u/s 80IA relating to profits of power generation operation from captive power plants (iii) Disallowance u/s 80-IA relating to profits ... assessee on these adjustments by the AO by observing and holding as under:- 29 Larsen & Toubro Asstt.Yrs 2001-02 & 2001-02 “a) Disallowance u/s 14A : The appellant has relied on the arguments put forth in connection with the addition made u/s 14A of the Act. The action

M/S. Wellknown Technologies P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-CC-7(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1341/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Wellknown Vs. Acit, Cc -7(4) Technologies Pvt Ltd 6Th Floor, 14Th Floor, Nirmal Aayakar Bhavan, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai – 400 020. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm3469J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Vinita Shah Respondent By : Ms.Indira Adakil.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2022 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)-49 Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Filed The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms.Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Ms.Indira Adakil.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

expenditure incurred cannot be accepted and relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay and worked out the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D(2) of I T Rules and restricted to Rs.3,68,281/- and assessed the total income of the assessee ... Prima-facie the sole grievance of the assessee that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the A.O in making disallowance u/s 14A irrespective of the fact that no expenditure has been incurred. We find on perusal of page1 of paper book audited balance sheet the investments

Twinkle Enviro Tech Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 2 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8041/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Twinkle Enviro- Tech Vs. Dcit, Circle 2(1) Pvt Ltd. Old Cgo Annexe 317/318, Parvati Bldg, Mumbai – Industrial Estate, Sun 400020. Mill Compound, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact4038N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.Vinay Sinha.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-48 Passed U/S 143(3) & 250. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.Vinay Sinha.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194ASection 2Section 271Section 37(1)Section 40

assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1 )(c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Similarly the A.O has made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act applying the Rule 8D(2) and determined the total income of Rs. 66,83,58,588/- and passed order u/s